Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HERITAGE

London Zoo

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what dealings he has had with the Zoological Society of London concerning the proposed closure of the London zoo.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): My right hon. and learned Friend and I have discussed with the Zoological Society of London the consequences of the society's decision to close London zoo. We confirmed that no more Government money can he given to the zoo. However, we remain willing to relieve the society of some of its obligations as leaseholders of the Regent's park site.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that when the zoo's lease comes to an end in two years' time, future plans must be based on a conservation theme which takes into account the interests of the community? Does he also agree that the donation of £1 million by the Emir of Kuwait was a life-saving gift, which has given the zoo tune to plan for its immediate future?

Mr. Key: Yes, the gift from Kuwait was extremely welcome. I gather that the report in the press about that money originated from a fellow of the Zoological Society and has nothing to do with the Government of Kuwait.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has powers to grant a lease only to the Zoological Society of London, so any new lease to the society would be for its activities within the terms of its charter. Many options are currently being pursued by various parties and we look forward to hearing of any sound proposals which may he put to us about the new lease.

Mr. Hardy: As a member of the council of the society for the past few months, may I ask whether the Minister appreciates that all other capital city zoos, with a major significant interest in conservation, depend upon and receive public funds? Unless that central, public funding is provided and guaranteed, London zoo will inevitably close, even despite generous gestures from Britain or abroad. Will the Minister reconsider such a guarantee, especially as the Government appeared to enter into obligations as a result of the decisions reached at Rio?

Mr. Key: The position on the renewal of the lease is absolutely clear and we have made a commitment. The

important work on conservation is funded separately, through the Universities Funding Council, and I understand that that work will continue as part of London university's programme. That work is not at issue. Of course I recognise the importance of the work done at the zoo, particularly the scientific work, but the zoo's council has had to face up to the reality of a fall in the number of people who wish to visit the zoo.

Mr. Bowden: Is my hon. Friend aware that for 160 years countless thousands of animals have had to live a miserable existence in that zoo—the equivalent of life imprisonment? Is it not time to shut not only London zoo, but every other zoo?

Mr. Key: I recognise the great strength of feeling on this issue, but if my hon. Friend, like me, has visited zoos from time to time I am sure that he realises that there is a great difference between the zoos of today and those of 20 years ago or, indeed, the Victorian era.
I recognise the important work that is done in zoos to preserve species. Much of the breeding in zoos has led to the survival of species which would otherwise be extinct. It is right, of course, that people no longer wish to see great animals in small cages in city centre zoos. However, we recognise the importance of London zoo; that is why it is the only one to have received funds, and substantial ones at that.

Minority Languages

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to extend the use of and support for minority British languages.

Mr. Key: The Broadcasting Act 1990 makes provision for ensuring that Welsh speakers continue to have access to a substantial proportion of radio and television programmes in Welsh. The Act also provides for the financing of television programmes in Scottish Gaelic, and I understand that there are plans for a large increase in the number of hours of such television programmes to be broadcast next year in Scotland. My right hon. Friends and I see no need to bring forward further proposals in this area.
As for the arts, the national arts councils and the regional arts boards support many projects in minority languages.

Mr. Flynn: Will the Government build on their creditable record in that area by fully recognising the immense cultural value of those beautiful languages, which contain the inherited experience, wit and wisdom of hundreds of generations of British people? By doing that and recognising the great value of those living treasures, the Minister might be thanked in the words, "Breith Buidheachas", "Diolch gnfawr iawn", or "Dea's Mure gut is Padraig".

Mr. Key: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Richards: Is my hon. Friend aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office, has been described by the former president of Plaid Cymru, the former Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, now Lord Elis Thomas of Nant Conwy, as having done more for the Welsh language than anyone else this century?

Mr. Key: Yes, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government's commitment is clear, not least through the introduction of the Welsh Language Bill.

Mr. Corbett: The Minister will be aware of the initiative in Northern Ireland schools, with Government support, to foster the teaching and expand the use of Gaelic in Northern Ireland. Will he now undertake to see what his Department can do to assist that process on television and radio programmes in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is primarily a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but a few pilot programmes are now being shown on television in Northern Ireland. I understand that the BBC is considering its position and Ulster Television undertook to provide some Irish programming as part of its franchise bid.

Mr. Butcher: Is good English now a minority language? If my hon. Friend sees the preservation of the English language as part of his job to preserve our cultural heritage, will he have a word with those who hire and fire media personnel in television and radio so that they, too, may be imbued with the same conviction and spirit?

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend hits on an important issue. The importance of dialect in the English language is close to my heart. I may be the only Member of Parliament—certainly the only Member of this House—who was required to sing a song in his local dialect the day after election to this House.

Tourism, London

Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the promotion of tourism in Greater London.

Mr. Key: London is one of this country's most important destinations for both domestic and overseas visitors. It is the role of the tourism industry, with support from the English tourist board and the London tourist board, to work to maximise the capital's visitor potential. The British Tourist Authority features London strongly in its overseas promotion.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister recognise that London's important position as a tourist centre is increasingly threatened by foreign competition and the inadequate infrastructure in London. especially the inadequate level and performance of public transport? What will he and his colleagues do to rectify that position so that London does not continue to lose out to other European cities in today's highly competitive tourist market?

Mr. Key: I was delighted to note that the new chairman of the London tourist board, whom I congratulate on his appointment, had made that one of his priorities—as, indeed, it is one of mine. To illustrate the good faith involved, I should add that I have already discussed with my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London a number of the problems facing the capital, particularly those connected with tourism and including those affecting the constituency of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). I await my hon. Friend's advice before proceeding to a meeting with Greenwich borough council.

Mr. Jessel: With regard to the promotion of tourism in Greater London and in the rest of the United Kingdom, will Her Majesty's Government resist the ridiculous proposal from Brussels to abolish British national tourist offices in countries such as the United States and Japan and replace them with European tourist offices? That is blatantly inconsistent with the principle of subsidiarity.

Mr. Key: I am glad to be able to reassure my hon. Friend that I know of no such proposals. It is true that the European Community seeks to increase its competence in such matters; the subject was debated vigorously at a recent Council of Ministers meeting in Luxembourg, which I attended. I believe that the Community has a role to play in speaking about tourism issues—after all, by the year 2000 tourism will be one of the greatest industries in Europe—but it is also important to recognise that those who run the industry and individual businesses, whether stately homes or bed-and-breakfast establishments, will determine the future of tourism.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister is being dangerously complacent in the face of a significant fall in the number of tourists visiting Britain, which has hit London especially badly. Those are the facts.
Perhaps the majority of tourists are attracted to Britain because of its arts and heritage. What arts and heritage policies will the Minister introduce? Will he actually repair the holes in the roof of the Tate gallery and other great buildings? Will he perhaps provide the money for the completion of the Globe theatre, and give some money to west end theatres so that their great fabric may be restored? Will he do anything at all? Does he not understand what France, Berlin and Barcelona are doing? When will the Government introduce decent policies, and attract some tourists?

Mr. Key: Heaven forbid that we should pursue the policies which are current in some of those places. The hon. Gentleman's figures are entirely wrong. Only last month, I was delighted to be able to comment on the increase in the number of tourists visiting this country from overseas in the first quarter of the year: that was most encouraging, and a significant reversal of last year's trends.
Of course it is appropriate to repair our heritage. One of the great advantages of the new Department of National Heritage is our ability to take an overall view of the problems as they confront us. We can tie the importance of tourism to that of leisure, and the importance of broadcasting to that of sport and heritage. Before, we had to carry out what might be described as a piecemeal operation.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the substantial increase in investment in London Regional Transport—£3,500 million over the next three years—will give a considerable boost to tourism? Is that not very much better than the peanuts spent by the late and unlamented Greater London council?

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I well remember the years during which the GLC cut its capital expenditure dramatically in order to subsidise fares. The move took very few people off the roads, and caused mayhem for regular travellers.

Theatres, Cumbria

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what official visits he has paid to theatres in the county of Cumbria in the last two months.

Mr. Key: Unfortunately, none. But I will be happy to consider invitations to theatres in Cumbria as part of any future visit that I make to the region.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister agree that the Blue Box theatre in Keswick in my constituency is now one of the finest theatres in the United Kingdom? Would he be prepared to approach representatives of the sports and arts councils, to ask them to look sympathetically on the application for a grant of £500,000 to build a new theatre to replace the old one, on the side of Lake Derwentwater?

Mr. Key: I shall be delighted to draw the hon. Gentleman's concern to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. I know that the Blue Box theatre has made an application for a grant of £500,000. The theatre is undoubtedly a much-enjoyed as well as a high-quality theatre; its only problem is that, if it moves again, it will fall down—hence the need for a new theatre. I am glad that the Department of the Environment has agreed that the theatre can be replaced, and I very much hope that the scheme will be successful and swiftly implemented, so that we can ensure that it is accessible to the vast majority of those in the north-west who wish to visit it—including the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Sport

Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what initiatives his Department is taking to increase participation and to raise standards in sport.

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. David Mellor): It is an overall aim of our policy for sport to encourage participation and raise standards. The Sports Council works with local authorities, sports governing bodies and others to promote a wide range of sporting activities at local level. The council also supports a range of initiatives to enable participants to raise their performance level.

Mr. Hawkins: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the backing that the Government are rightly giving the Manchester Olympic bid is especially welcomed in the north-west, particularly in my constituency of Blackpool, South? Not only will it encourage greater participation, and the highest standards in sport—standards so well personified by Mr. Nigel Mansell, who achieved a splendid victory yesterday—but when it succeeds, it will greatly boost the hotel trade in the region, and in my constituency in particular.

Mr. Mellor: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned Nigel Mansell, whose great achievements the House has recognised. He is, of course, a great racing driver, but the extraordinary success of the engineering industry in the United Kingdom in producing so many of the cars which have transformed formula 1 racing is also most impressive.
We stand 100 per cent. behind Manchester's bid. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be going to Barcelona next week, as will a number of other Ministers,

to ensure that it is made clear to the International Olympic Committee that the British Government fully support Manchester and will make sure, if it is successful, that the Olympics are run superbly well.

Ms. Hoey: Does the Secretary of State agree that the role of the voluntary sector, and particularly of unpaid sports coaches and school teachers in their spare time, in improving participation in sport is important? Does he share the concern that many voluntary sports clubs feel about the level of funding, and especially the burden of the business rate? Will he join me in the delegation going to see the Treastury about corporation tax and will he give his full support to exemption from corporation tax for the British Olympic Association so as to ensure that the money raised by voluntary effort for the Olympics can be spent on that and not given back to the Government?

Mr. Mellor: I probably have enough problems without adding to them, so I will leave the hon. Lady to make her own representations. There has been a substantial increase in Government support for sport—up nearly 30 per cent. to the Sports Council in real terms in the lifetime of this Government.
I am well aware of the hon. Lady's point, and it is particularly true when it comes to ensuring excellence among young people. I am sure that she will welcome the champion coaching scheme which last year enabled more than 6,000 children to benefit from quality after-school coaching and which came about because of the extra grant that the Government gave the Sports Council. Sports sponsorship, too, increasingly recognises the need to get in behind young people and to breed the champions of the future. That sort of idea is more alive in Britain today than ever before.

Industrial Heritage Year

Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans the Government are making for Industrial Heritage Year 1993.

Mr. Mellor: The English tourist board, which receives funding from my Department, has designated 1993 as Industrial Heritage Year, as a means of more widely promoting the tourism potential of our industrial heritage.
I have agreed to become patron of the year.

Mr. Page: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. He may be aware that more than 100 years ago my constituency was the centre of paper production in this country, but that very little of that remains today. Will he and the Department work through next year with English Heritage, with local authorities and with private bodies to encourage such schemes so as to preserve our industrial heritage for future generations?

Mr. Mellor: Yes, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The idea of Industrial Heritage Year, besides nurturing the industries of the future, is to ensure that there are reminders of the great industries of the past—reminders in the form of a partnership, with significant assistance from English Heritage, with Government funding, and with many local interests, resulting in a genuine commitment which goes wider than merely public bodies. That will ensure that vital parts of our industrial heritage are preserved.

Mr. Sheldon: Does the Minister agree that Industrial Heritage Year must be rather more than just a means of attracting tourists? Does he agree that it can show the richness of our past industries, making that more relevant to what is happening today and ensuring that people understand that what happened in the past can be achieved again—if the necessary assistance is forthcoming.

Mr. Mellor: It is certainly very important that Industrial Heritage Year should stand on its own merits and not just be related to tourism, although that is an important aspect. We should all have the opportunity to go and see the sort of conditions in which people used to work. In my former, similar job I had the chance to go to a museum dedicated to showing the sort of conditions in which people used to manufacture needles. It is extremely salutary for those of us who sometimes complain about our lot to see the sort of conditions that people had to endure then. That is particularly relevant to young people.

Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the national railway museum, on the committee of which I have the honour to serve, is the jewel in the crown of industrial archaeology in this country? Will he therefore take an early opportunity to visit the museum? Will he explain why the arena of railway preservation, which was previously under the auspices of the Minister with responsibility for the arts appears to have been transferred to the Department of Transport? Has that to do with transport policy?

Mr. Mellor: I was unaware that that part of my empire had slipped away. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing it to my attention. Both the museum and my hon. Friend are valued parts of our national heritage.

Sport

Mr. Pendry: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his responsibilities for sport.

Mr. Mellor: The Government's priorities for sport were set out in the policy document "Sport and Active Recreation", published in December 1991.

Mr. Pendry: Does the Secretary of State accept that he has made a good start with association football, especially by relaxing the all-seater stadium requirements for third and fourth division clubs, following the Taylor report? Does he accept that some clubs in the higher divisions are running into real problems in meeting the Taylor timetable? That applies especially to clubs submitting plans for modern stadiums or adapting their existing grounds and finding great problems at local and Department of the Environment level. Will he urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to look sympathetically at those cases, or will he extend the timetable beyond August 1994?

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that before announcing a decision on the Taylor report I consulted widely in the House, especially with the members of the all-party parliamentary football group. That all-party group shows what can be achieved when partisanship is laid on one side and we are able genuinely to co-operate. I appreciate that we set a tough timetable, but I did not think that it was right, especially in the light

of the tremendous efforts made by some clubs to comply, to allow the timetable to slip. The additional funds from the sale of television rights to the premier league should allow much more work to be done. Football Trust moneys will continue to be available to the new first division. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's real concern that clubs sometimes feel hard done by when they are put under pressure by the wider community to improve facilities and then, when they have proposals to do so, planning authorities raise all kinds of objections. That should be taken seriously, and I would welcome a meeting with the all-party group to discuss it.

Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that the sport really needs a better standard of behaviour, better manners and better etiquette? In that context, will be study carefully the splendid example set by the Parliamentary Golfing Society?

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend has certainly scored a hole in one with that. It is very unfortunate, as I had to say during the recent European championships, that a small minority of fans in England of our national game let everyone else down. That is untypical of the behaviour of fans generally. I have been to many different sporting events, both before and after being appointed to this job, and it is clear to me that most British sports fans behave impeccably, are well informed, enjoy the game and do not in any sense behave badly.

Ms. Eagle: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that part of his responsibility is to ensure that people have equal access and equal opportunities in sport? I speak from experience as a chess player and a cricketer. However, I was a very bad cricketer because I was never allowed to play in mixed teams. Does he agree that improving access to sporting opportunities, especially for girls and young women, is an important part of his responsibility if we are to regain a place of excellence in sporting achievements?

Mr. Mellor: I agree with the hon. Lady. She will be glad to know that, since 1987, it has been a condition of all Sports Council grants to mixed sports organisations that the recipients provide equal opportunities for men and women. I shall widen the issue a little by saying that I am also concerned about access to sport by disabled people. I am sure that the House will know that, as well as supporting the main Olympics in Spain, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be going to the Paralympics in Spain as a way of showing our endorsement and encouragement of the tremendous achievement of disabled athletes.

Tennis

Mr. Dickens: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans the Government have to encourage excellence in tennis proficiency in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Key: Promoting excellence is a Government priority for sport. The Sports Council, which my Department funds, supports a range of performance and excellence initiatives which benefit tennis along with other sports.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that Wimbledon is the greatest tennis tournament in the world and that Jeremy Bates ran his little legs off this year, to come within one match point of getting into the quarter finals? However, where are the champions? In recent memory, we have had only three, and they have all been ladies—Angela Mortimer, Ann Jones and Virginia Wade. What are we doing to encourage champions, because Champions like Nigel Mansell are good for British commerce, trade and industry?

Mr. Key: Jeremy Bates did a magnificent job, but let us not forget Chris Wilkinson or Mark Petchey, or Miles Maclagan, who became the first Briton in 18 years to reach the semi-finals of the boys' juniors. In the ladies' singles, Shirli-Ann Siddall, who is only 17, won in her debut game at Wimbledon and, as a result, climbed 200 places in the world rankings in four weeks. Wimbledon last year provided £12 million for the Lawn Tennis Association, which was 56 per cent. of its income. The LTA is spending that income wisely—for example, with its Rover juniors tennis initiative. There are now 70 young people aged between 10 and 14 on that scheme and from September a further 90 aged between 10 and 16 will be on it. There are also seven boys and four girls at the LTA's school at Bisham Abbey.

Sport

Mr. John Carlisle: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he will discuss with the chairman of the Sports Council the future funding of sport.

Mr. Mellor: The funding of sport is one of many issues which I have already discussed with the chairman of the Sports Council, and I look forward to continuing to meet him regularly.

Mr. Carlisle: As a former Chief Secretary, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider marking his term of office by becoming the one Minister with responsibility for sport who asked less of the British taxpayer than his predecessors? On that basis, when can we expect money from the national lottery, and is my right hon. and learned Friend encouraging more business participation in sport? Furthermore, will he consider asking some of those sportsmen and sportswomen at the top of their sport, who have made enormous sums from prize money and wages, to give something back to help those at the grassroots, from when they came?

Mr. Mellor: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. Relevant to the last question is the fact that Cliff Richard has been doing a tremendous amount of work, with his own resources, to encourage youngsters to play excellent tennis. I should like to see more people doing such things. We reckon that private sector sponsorship now provides £200 million of resources a year to sport. Government money should be used to tease out more private sector commitment. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have been able to get more business sponsorship of the arts by an incentive scheme whereby some Government money goes to those organisations that raise business sponsorship. I am delighted to say that we shall be announcing shortly a £3 million business sponsorship scheme for sport, which is designed to get even more private sector money into sport.

Mr. Bennett: When the Minister has a word with the Sports Council, will he consider the problems faced by people organising fell racing and orienteering events in the north of England because both North West Water and the Forestry Commission seem to be increasing, or imposing for the first time, charges for the use of their land? That causes considerable concern, particularly as there is a danger that it will push fell racing back on to public rights of way—where there can be no charges—which will increase the problems of erosion.

Mr. Mellor: I confess that that is not an issue with which I am familiar, not being much into fell racing myself, as will be obvious. However, I appreciate that it is an important sport for a number of people, and if the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to write to me about it, I shall look into what he says.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) is no small champion himself when he looks for champions? Does he agree also that sport in schools is not getting the support that it deserves and that many children are missing out? Does he accept the recommendation of the previous Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts that teachers who coach sport after school hours should be paid for so doing?

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend knows that we have been expanding the after-school coaching scheme. I shall not become involved in industrial relations negotiations about whether people should be paid. It is important that sport should be recognised within the national curriculum. As my hon. Friend knows, it is recognised now for children up to 14, and by 1995 it will be recognised for children up to 16. That will be important and necessary in producing champions and ensuring that everyone reaches a certain level of fitness and enjoys participation in sport.

Eastern European Art

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his request to the United Kingdom art trade to co-operate in the event of any objects, including icons, from Czechoslovakia, other eastern European countries or the Commonwealth of Independent States appearing at auction houses in Britain.

Mr. Key: In response to our request to members of the United Kingdom art trade to co-operate should any items be offered for sale which would appear to have come from eastern Europe, we were asked to obtain further details, including photographs, of any particular items which might have been stolen in order to assist in identification. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been asked to write to our embassies in eastern Europe requesting that approaches should be made to the relevant authorities for this information and responses are awaited.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not poignantly ironic that, having survived 40 years of communism in Czechoslovakia and 70 years of Stalinsim in Russia, many of the most beautiful carvings and icons are in greater danger than ever before? Is the Minister aware that distinguished colleagues of his who are members of the parliamentary all-party heritage group found ourselves locked up in a rural church in


Bohemia, having been suspected of pilfering? We then discovered that this was all about valuable items that find their way to the London and Frankfurt art markets.

Mr. Key: I was aware of that, and I wish to add something to the hon. Gentleman's point. He is right. Last night, having returned from Silverstone, I sat down to watch the "Europe Express" programme on Channel 4, which dealt with precisely the problem to which he referred. Reference was made to the problem in Bulgaria, where I understand there is a new generation of grave robbers who are assisted by magnetic metal detectors. This is a most serious issue. It is the consequence of open borders, and we shall do all that we can to prevent looting. I understand that about 20,000 Czechoslovakian pictures and icons have been stolen from churches. I am sorry about the inconvenience that was experienced by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, but I am sure that he will recognise that it was a good thing that the problem was recognised by the authorities. We shall do all that we can to assist at this end as, I know, will the United Kingdom art market.

Mr. Cormack: Having been locked in the said church with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I add my plea to his. Would my hon. Friend like to consider setting up an international art loss register rather like the national register that has been set up by the United Kingdom?

Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. I should be glad to hear more about the expedition of which he was a member. There may be lessons to be learnt by many countries in the European Community.

Royal Collection

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many of the items listed by Queen Victoria as state property remain in public ownership; and where are the others.

Mr. Mellor: I understand that there are no grounds for believing that any of the items listed have left the royal collection.

Mr. Cohen: I am pleased that the Minister acknowledges that there is a list, as put forward by Suzy Menkes, the eminent writer on the royal family. Will he assure the House that the jewels are the property of the state? Is it not about time that we had a new inventory? If not, what is to stop royalty—after all, they have a reputation for rapacity—making off with, for example, the Crown jewels?

Mr. Mellor: Or offering them to the hon. Gentleman for evening wear. I am sorry to disappoint him, but there is no reason to think that the jewels are state property—

Mr. Cohen: Yes, they are.

Mr. Mellor: Absolutely not.

Mr. Cohen: They are.

Mr. Mellor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should be answering the question, not asking it. The electorate will

have a view on that. There is no reason to think that the jewels are state property; they are royal property. The hon. Gentleman has made a mistake.

National Lottery

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimates he has made of the proceeds from the reintroduction of a national lottery.

Mr. Mellor: It is too early to say. We intend that it should be a great success, raising hundreds of millions of pounds for good causes.

Mr. Bottomley: I welcome that answer, which appears to downgrade the idea that there might be £1 billion a year for good causes, £1 billion for prizes and £1 billion for costs. Would not a realistic estimate of the amount available help to diminish some of the wild exaggerations that have been behind some of the calls for support for the national lottery?

Mr. Mellor: It is because I have no wish to add to that exaggeration that as yet I have no wish to put a figure on the lottery. If it has the right statutory backing—which I hope and believe the House should give it—and if it is properly run, it will have the scope not only to provide a great deal of interest and innocent amusement for a whole range of people but to raise a large amount to benefit causes that would never benefit to such a degree through conventional public expenditure. That will be good. I hope that when we introduce the necessary Bill it will have the support of the whole House.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Global Climate Observation System

Dr. Moonie: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will enable British representatives to put forward specific expenditure proposals for the new elements of the proposed global climate observation system to the World Meteorological Organisation meeting next year; and whether they will be met by additions to the science budget.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): The joint scientific and technical committee for the global climate observing system has been charged by its international parent bodies with making specific costed proposals. We, like other Government Departments, look forward to considering those detailed proposals and discussing them at the intergovernmental co-ordinating committee planned for next spring.

Dr. Moonie: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he confirm that he recognises the importance of such international collaboration projects, the need for a commitment forward planning where more than one Government is involved and the need for the money to be found outwith his existing budget?

Mr. Waldegrave: Before answering the hon. Gentleman, I wish to say how unfamiliar it is during questions on science to face an Opposition without the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), who has made a great contribution to these matters.
We recognise the importance of the issues. The Meteorological Office is a major contributor on world climate issues. Its former director, Sir John Houghton, is the director of the technical group. On the question of money, we shall have to wait until we know what is requested before we can say how we shall finance the proposal.

Market Testing

Mr. Sproat: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will issue a progress report on the moves to contract out and market test central Government services.

Mr. Waldegrave: Our discussions with Departments continue to make progress. As promised in the White Paper "Competing for Quality", I look forward to publishing later this year the targets set by Departments and agencies for testing new areas of activity in the market, to see whether alternative sources give better service and value for money for the customer and the taxpayer.

Mr. Sproat: As the objective of the policy is to improve the quality of public services by the Government buying them in through either the public or the private sector—whichever does it better—will my right hon. Friend make absolutely certain that all Government Departments set the most demanding targets to ensure real competitive benefits?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right about the policy's objectives. I am glad to say that there appears to be increasing cross-party support for it. In an important speech, Jeremy Beecham—who is a distinguished Labour local authority leader, although he has made other criticisms of the Government—said that the purchase-supplier split has
caused a re-examination of performance, with general beneficial results.
He is right, which is why central Government will pursue the same policy that has been successfully pursued in local government.

Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister encourage his colleagues to apply the same criteria to spending by the royal family?

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman expects a reply to that slightly frivolous question.

Scientific Research

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the change in Government spending on scientific research since 1979.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): The science budget was £324·5 million in 1979–80 and is £1,050 million in 1992–93. That represents an increase of 25 per cent. in real terms since 1979 after making appropriate adjustments for changes in funding responsibilities during the period.

Mr. Marshall: I welcome the fact that the Government spend a greater percentage of gross domestic product on civil research than is spent in Japan or in the United Slates. Is my right hon. Friend happy that the quality of the research is adequate as well?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend draws attention to the important point that we should look at the ouput from the investment in science and technology just as much as we look at the financial and other inputs into it. The academic output of British science—the quality to which my hon. Friend refers—appears to be in good health. During the 1980s, Britain remained second only to the United States in the number of papers published and in the number of citations of those papers.

Citizens Charter

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what improvements have taken place in public services as a result of the implementation of the citizens charter.

Mr. Waldegrave: I will give the House three recent examples out of many. Comparative tables of school performance will be published for the first time this autumn. Guaranteed admission times for hip and knee replacements and cataract operations will be reduced to 18 months from 1 April 1993. British Rail is publishing monthly performance figures—line by line—for the first time.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the patients charter is working well in Bolton where the health authority succeeded in abolishing the two-year waiting list before the charter deadline? Is not today's announcement of a trust status application from Bolton general hospital further good news for patients in Bolton?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is good news. Bolton health authority has had a good record of achieving its charter standards. It beat the target of having no waiting for more than two years by some months and it has in place the named nurse system for patient care. I confirm what my hon. Friend says. The seeking of trust status will help to carry that further forward.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister comment on the fact that parents are increasingly finding it difficult to find dentists who are prepared to take children on to their books, not only because of the fees situation but generally as a result of payment methods? That is especially so when children have particular problems with their teeth, given that the payments bear no relationship to the treatment needed. Will the right hon. Gentleman intervene with his colleagues at the Department of Health to see whether there is a way to sort out that problem?

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The new dental contracts for the first time specifically removed the incentive to do more filling and were concerned with the whole dental care of the patient. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and hon. Members of all parties are well aware of the background to the dispute. I imagine that no one wants a completely open-ended commitment regardless of the recommendations of the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the patients charter is to be extended to general practitioners and that that will lead to an improvement in the health service on offer to patients, which patients will welcome?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. It is the objective of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to carry the charter principles forward into primary care, which is very sensible. The great majority of contacts between patients and the national health service take place in the primary care format. I know that many GPs—the committee of general practitioners—have welcomed those steps and the offer of discussion with my right hon. Friend.

Dr. Marek: It is important for the charter that any moves to contract out and market test central Government services are open to public scrutiny and it is especially important that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have complete access to examine any value-formoney proposals that the Government have. Does the Chancellor agree?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am aware of the suggestion made by some of the civil service unions for an umpire of the level playing field in this matter. The Comptroller and Auditor General has access to the accounts after the event and, if any contracting out did not show good value for money, he would doubtless have something to say about it.

Research and Development

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the level of private sector research and development in Britain.

Mr. Waldegrave: The latest information is that the level of private sector research and development was some £8·1 billion in the United Kingdom in 1990, up about 13 per cent. in real terms since 1985.

Mr. Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the independent scoreboard of research and development data, which is so often quoted by the Opposition, has recorded an increase in business research and development for 1990–91? Is that not an excellent record of performance, bearing in mind the difficult economic circumstances of the past two years?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. It was an encouraging indicator that, despite the first year of recession, private sector firms have not cut research, if we are to believe the independent scoreboard. I hope that that shows that there has been an underlying sea change in the attitude of our industrial firms to the importance of R and D for the long term.

Dr. Bray: Does the Minister agree that, when comparing like with like among those firms—apart from the pharmaceutical industry—there is a major lag between spending by British companies and that of their industrial competitors overseas? Does the Minister see any chance of closing that gap if we fail to provide the incentives to firms to increase their industrial research and development that are provided in other countries, particularly the United States?

Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the picture is mixed. Some of the leading firms in Britain do better than their counterparts. For example, GEC at 7·2 per cent. is lower than Siemens at 10·8 per cent., but higher than Philips at 6·8 per cent. As one would expect, the percentage for Glaxo is very high. It is not a universal

picture. However, it is encouraging that British firms have been increasing their position and, to some extent, catching up with their rivals abroad, as they need to do.

Mr. Dykes: Is my right hon. Friend now confident that the United Kingdom is getting its fair share of the very sizeable research contracts in the EEC system, particularly, for example, in high definition television?

Mr. Waldegrave: We get almost our just return from the EC expenditure on research and development—and perhaps a little bit better than that. It will be one of our objectives during our presidency to ensure that the quality of assessment and management of that increasingly large programme is improved further. It is very important, and of increasing importance, particularly in the near-to-industry area of research in this country.

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what initiatives he proposes to take to encourage a switch from military to civilian research and development; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Robert Jackson: The defence research and development programme is directed to the future equipment needs of the armed forces. The interface between military and civil R and D is an issue in which I shall take a close interest—for example, in the context of the Government's White Paper on science and technology.

Mr. Barnes: Does the Minister accept that Britain's high level of investment in military rather than civilian research and development means that this country has often lacked a competitive edge? Will he have a word with the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that major defence establishments such as Farnborough begin to move into civilian research and development, away from military research and development, to give us that competitive edge?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman should not overlook the substantial contribution made by the defence industries, for example, to the balance of payments. Those firms make an important contribution to the economy. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point about Farnborough and other institutions within the Ministry of Defence research framework, the establishment of the Defence Research Agency has provided an opportunity to review the position and we will consider it again in the White Paper. The DRA will be able to consider the possibilities for diversification in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does not the Defence Research Agency already carry out work for non-governmental customers? Is not there much scope in that regard?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The DRA has inherited a wide-ranging and complex set of businesses and there are many sites. It is considering what it has been given and I am sure that it will take advantage of the opportunities such as those to which my hon. Friend referred.

Service Standards

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to ensure that none of the service standards specified in the charters published to date are relaxed or withdrawn during the lifetime of this Parliament.

Mr. Robert Jackson: In the 19 follow-up charters published to date, we have, for the first time, clear standards which tell customers the level of service that they can expect. Those standards will be regularly reviewed so that we get a continuous improvement in the quality of public services within a tax bill that the nation can afford.

Mr. Bayley: Does the process of continual review allow the Government to abandon or water down any commitments in the charters that they find difficult to meet? The Library's reference sheet on charters mentions the Department of Employment charter to establish minimum wages and protect them through regulation—a wages inspectorate charter. Will that remain unchanged throughout the lifetime of this Parliament?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman asks two questions, one about the review process for charters and their targets and standards, and the other about the policy of the Department of Employment, and that is obviously a matter for it. On the review process for charters, there will be an annual review, if not more frequently, of the targets, standards and performance indicators that have been set for the different branches of the public service under the citizens charter. Government Departments will, of course, be in the lead in their sectors, but the charter unit and the Office of Public Service and Science, which is headed by my right hon. Friend, will obviously play an important part in that.

Mr. Bowis: Will my hon. Friend ensure that he monitors not only national charters but local government charters to ensure that they are not just words but actions that are carried out and that, where they are inadequate, as is often the case, they are strengthened?

Mr. Jackson: In the case of services that are delivered by local authorities, obviously a different attitude to review has to be followed. In short, ultimate responsibility for enforcing the standards that are set in local government charters has to lie with the local electorate. We have to recognise that fact. However, there is a central Government role, which is limited to ensuring, first, that citizens have the information that they need about the performance of local authorities and, secondly, that, wherever possible, citizens and local authorities are able to take advantage of choice between competing providers of services.

Mrs. Mahon: On charters, will the Minister begin to redress the disgraceful exclusion of the homeless from citizens' rights by adopting CHAR's citizens charter for the homeless?

Mr. Jackson: We are obviously very interested in any suggestions for improving and extending the quality and range of our charter effort. I will certainly look at what the hon. Lady has said.

Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the wide differences in the performance of local

authorities, the Audit Commission's initiative to have comparative performance indicators for local authorities should enable local authorities to improve the service that they deliver?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is what I meant when I said that one of the roles of central Government can be to ensure that information is available so that citizens can make appropriate judgments about the performance of local authorities. The Audit Commission's initiative is very welcome. It stems from Government legislation, and it will have an important effect on the quality and circumstances of local government services.

Intestacy

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the income and expenditure of the benevolent fund which specifically relates to intestacy proceeds.

Mr. Waldegrave: The Duchy of Lancaster benevolent fund was set up to provide income to be used for charitable and benevolent purposes primarily in the county palatine. The income from the fund is applied to such purposes.

Mr. Cohen: At the previous Duchy of Lancaster questions, the Chancellor told me that all—all—the proceeds from repossessions on intestacy, rather than going to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, went to the benevolent fund. It is in Hansard. He said "all". I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at that. That does not accord with the duchy's own accounts. After interest, it still amounts to a substantial little earner for the privy purse. The Chancellor may quibble over the figures, but will he seriously look at the issue and stop unjust repossessions in the duchy?

Mr. Waldegrave: I made the matter clear—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: To me.

Mr. Waldegrave: I made the matter clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who perhaps knows rather more about such matters. I distinctly remember saying that the costs of the magistracy were taken from them—nothing from the bona vacantia payments goes to the privy purse. Eventually, the hon. Gentleman may understand that point.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the envious attitude of Londonders towards the excellent charities in Lancashire which accrue from that ancient custom and law is much to be deplored? Will he ensure that the likes of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who do not care two hoots for Lancashire and know little about it, do not plunder the funds, many of which go to my constituency?

Mr. Waldegrave: I take it that the only rational outcome, if there is one, of the questioning of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will be that Lancashire will lose the funds and they will go to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That may be what the hon. Gentleman wants, but I cannot believe that it would be popular in the county palatine, where many good causes are financed by the fund. The hon. Gentleman, in


his desire to attack the royal family on the matter, still does not understand that none of the moneys go to the privy purse.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister not accept that there is considerable concern about the affair in the county of Lancashire—both the county palatine and the shire county? Will he undertake to publish in full what the

income is and what payments have been made of it so that the people of Lancashire know exactly what is happening with the fund?

Mr. Waldegrave: The concern stems from the fact that hon. Gentlemen, principally the hon. Member for Leyton, have managed so to confuse themselves that they may have confused the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who may like to know that the accounts are placed in the Library every year, where he can read them.

Economic Summit and CSCE

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the economic summit in Munich and the summit of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe in Helsinki last week. I represented the United Kingdom at the economic summit, with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Foreign Secretary also attended the Helsinki summit.
The economic summit met against the background of a world economy that is still sluggish. The difficulty of achieving non-inflationary growth was uppermost in our discussions. We would all like to see faster growth. Recovery has been slower in coming than anyone anticipated but the conclusions, which are in the Library of the House, record both our desire for stronger sustainable growth and our view that it can be achieved only through sound monetary and fiscal policies. Unless we get inflation down and keep it down there will he no lasting growth.
The single biggest contribution that can be made to recovery throughout the world is a GATT settlement. A settlement would give a sharp non-inflationary boost to the world economy. The OECD has concluded that it would be equivalent to a $195 billion gain in annual incomes. More than $90 billion of that would accrue to developing and former communist countries. It would boost the economic transformation of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, encourage developing countries to persevere with their reforms, and check protectionism in world trade.
A GATT settlement is essential, and I make no apology for having put it high on the agenda at Munich and insisting that it was discussed in detail. In the light of this year's reform of the common agricultural policy, the remaining gap between the European Commmunity and the United States on the crucial agricultural issues is a small one. I believe that it can be bridged and the communique contains a firm commitment to a result this year.
At the economic summit last year I pledged to attend the Rio conference and urged others to do the same. On my return, I suggested an eight-point follow-up action plan. That plan, which is set out in the conclusions, was accepted by the G7.
We also had a meeting with President Yeltsin, days after Russia had reached an agreement with the International Monetary Fund. The imminence of the Munich meeting undoubtedly helped to clinch that agreement. It opens the way for the IMF to release the first $1 billion credit tranche. That, in turn, opens the way to a debt-rescheduling agreement. I was able to announce that the United Kingdom is ready to make available $500 million of export credit cover for the former Soviet Union.
Russia faces massive difficulties. Inflation is running at well over 150 per cent., the fiscal deficit is rising and will be well over 10 per cent. of GDP for the rest of this year, and the pace of reform has slowed down in several areas. Translating reforms on paper into reforms in operation is proving difficult. President Yeltsin assured us of his determination to put renewed impetus behind the reform programme. With the IMF programme in place it will be easier to monitor progress and to propose remedies, but

none of us should underestimate the huge nature of his task: it is literally unparalleled and we all have a stake in his success.
The United Kingdom has urged for some time that the Munich summit should take an initiative on the safety of nuclear power stations in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe. Members of the Community pledged themselves at Lisbon to provide significant resources. The G7 agreed on an action programme and to create a fund to supplement existing bilateral efforts to ensure a co-ordinated and targeted approach.
The political declaration adopted at Munich underlines, in respect of the former Soviet Union, the general theme of help for self-help. It calls for a resolution of the northern territories dispute. The declaration also calls for the indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty at the 1995 extension conference and underlines the need, in the face of the growing demands on them, to strengthen both the United Nations and the CSCE.
The CSCE played a crucial role in the 1970s, setting human rights standards which the communist world could not ignore. The role of the CSCE in monitoring human rights, especially minority rights, remains. The CSCE must also take on new roles as well. At last week's meeting we agreed a number of new roles for the CSCE covering: the earlier warning of political conflicts; the need for a new mechanism to improve the peaceful settlement of disputes; the establishment of a high commissioner for national minorities; and the CSCE role in peacekeeping.
No mechanisms can provide solutions if people are not willing to use them. It will take more than one or two conferences to resolve many of the ethnic conflicts that were frozen under communist rule and which are now coming aggressively to life again. But progress was made at that meeting, for example, on the issue of troop withdrawal from the Baltic states and on the handling of Yugoslavia.
The overall priority in Yugoslavia is to try to get the parties to negotiate. In that task, Lord Carrington's efforts are of crucial importance, and were underlined and endorsed at the Helsinki meeting. In the short term, our priority is the provision of humanitarian relief to Sarajevo and beyond. Britain already has 300 medical personnel as part of the UN force in Croatia. We have so far flown 28 humanitarian flights to Sarajevo. HMS Avenger will take part in an operation to monitor sanctions, jointly agreed at Helsinki by NATO and the Western European Union. The feasibility of establishing a land corridor to Sarajevo under UN auspices is being explored. If such an operation were feasible, Britain would be prepared to consider providing air cover for it. We would not supply ground troops.
Everyone who has seen the recent news reports has been shocked and moved by the suffering children in Sarajevo. At the end of last week, we told the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that we stood ready to evacuate children from Sarajevo to the United Kingdom for medical treatment, or to send medical teams to Yugoslavia to provide treatment on the spot.
If it is possible to treat the children on the spot, near to their families, with people around them who speak their language and in relatively familiar surroundings, that is obviously the best way. We have told the International Red Cross that we are willing to fly out medical personnel at very short notice if needed. I hope to meet the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in London later this week to see what further action is needed.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement on the Munich and Helsinki summits. The G7 communique recognises that
Too many people are out of work … The potential strength of people, factories and resources is not being fully employed … unemployment creates great hardship",
and that the world would
gain greatly from stronger, sustainable non-inflationary growth".
Since that is all self-evident, will the Prime Minister tell us why absolutely no positive measures for economic expansion were proposed or adopted at the Munich summit? Can he tell us why, yet again, there were no concrete proposals for the co-ordinated growth policies which are now so obviously necessary if the world economy is not to sink into prolonged stagnation?
After two full years of recession in Britain, is it not clear that the policies which the Prime Minister follows suppress rather than eradicate inflation and are preventing growth rather than achieving non-inflationary growth? Is it not equally plain that the continuation of those policies will perpetuate recession and unemployment?
At the G7 summit, the Prime Minister, with the other leaders, recognised the need for more investment in training in infrastructure and in research and development. Will the Prime Minister explain how the commitments that he made at Munich are consistent with the statement by the Secretary of State for Employment last week that resources for training and enterprise councils are to be cut? Will he also tell the House how his commitments at Munich can be reconciled with persistent reduction in the real value of research and development funding and with the neglect of infrastructure by the Conservative Government in Britain?
On the issue of Russia and the other states of the former Soviet Union, is the Prime Minister aware that the value of the aid offered to the former Soviet Union is minuscule by comparison with the enormous benefits which are in prospect for everyone as a result of the end of the cold war? While recognising that it is necessary to act to prevent realisation of the threat of hyper-inflation in Russia and the other states of the former Soviet Union, does the Prime Minister agree that the hurdles which have been placed in the way of the Russian Government's receiving assistance from the west are so large that they will effectively prevent the necessary assistance from being given? Does the Prime Minister recognise that, if strong and stable support is not provided to the former Soviet Union, a terrible political, economic and environmental price could be paid, not only by the people of those states but by the wider world?
With regard to the hideous problems of what was Yugoslavia, on which the Prime Minister spent quite a deal of his statement, I welcome his announcement that medical aid and medical treatment will be available in Britain for children from Sarajevo who cannot be treated in their own area. While everyone must want the most substantial humanitarian aid programme to be sustained and delivered to the wretched people of the republics, and while the most intense sanctions are justified, the Prime Minister and his colleagues have been right to counsel severe caution in relation to military intervention. Will he be sure to continue that approach and to insist that any action which proves necessary is undertaken only under the auspices of the United Nations?
When the Prime Minister reflects on the ineffectual results of the Munich summit, does he not think that it

would now be sensible to suspend G7 meetings until the leaders of seven of the strongest economies in the world are willing to take action which is significant enough to live up to the splendour of the summit occasions? Does the Prime Minister not recognise that there can scarcely have been a summit at which the results for the world fell so far short of the needs of the world, and that the paralysis of policy is a source of potentially dangerous disappointment and disillusionment for all who seek answers from the leaders of democracies?
As one who continues to believe in the great potential of co-ordinated and co-operative action by the leading democracies, may I record my regret at having to speak of the Munich summit in such negative terms, and my even greater sadness that the occasion earned only that response?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for some of the right hon. Gentleman's observations, and I will deal with the points that he raised.
I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that at the Munich summit there were some successes and some disappointments. In some areas, I should have liked to see stronger progress—not least on the Uruguay round, in respect of which I made it clear to my fellow heads of government that I believed that we could have made more progress. For many of the reasons implicit in what the right hon. Gentleman has said, it would have been desirable if we had done so.
However, there was progress at the summit: there was progresss in the programme to develop safety in the field of nuclear power, in carrying forward the agreement at Rio, in helping the lower and middle income countries with their debt, and in pushing ahead yet further the Trinidad terms. There was progress also, of course, in the meeting with President Yeltsin. I refer not least to his remarkable statement on debt-equity swaps, which may open up great possibilities both for Russia and for business enterprises with the former Soviet Union. Although there were areas in which the G7 summit might have achieved more, it is unreasonable to say that it achieved nothing. The meeting was well worth while—not least because, if people meet to discuss and examine problems, they will all find themselves in a better position to deal with those problems in the future.
On the subject of aid to the former Soviet Union, $1 billion is being dispensed immediately under the IMF agreement, but a total of $18 billion is available through the G24. What has been agreed, and wholly accepted by the Russian Government, is that that ought to be dispensed against progress on the reform packages. Had we dispensed aid and assistance without reform, we should have dispensed a great deal already—and it would have achieved little, if anything at all. The right hon. Gentleman was right to talk about the dangers of hyper-inflation, which are real and explicitly recognised by Prime Minister Gaidar and President Yeltsin.
We did discuss unemployment and the only way in which it will come down. Non-inflationary growth is the key to providing lasting job opportunities. That is true in relation to the growth of employment and the improvement of training opportunities. Throughout the G7 there was a commitment to policies to free innovation and enterprise to create employment opportunities. That is the only way in which we can satisfactorily proceed.
On Yugoslavia, I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said about the aid offered to children. I also believe that he is entirely right to be cautious about military involvement on the ground in Yugoslavia. I assure him that that is the Government's position. The conflict is unlike any that we have seen in recent years and it is not one that is likely to be resolved readily by external troops on the ground. In any event, were there to be intervention, the right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that it should be done under the auspices of the United Nations.

Mr. David Howell: In relation to the Bosnian horror, will my hon. Friend accept that his great caution about getting involved in Balkan entanglements is wholly to be commended? Will he also recognise, however, that one way or another—through air cover, naval operations or the United Nations—we seem to be starting to become entangled in that area? Does he agree that, as things unfold, it is vital for us to distinguish clearly the objectives of international involvement as between humanitarian operations, even if they involve force, and prtotecting the integrity of the Bosnian state, which is a quite different objective? Finally, does he agree that, having settled those clear and limited objectives, it is vital to ensure maximum co-ordination among the powers and the minimum of individual flamboyant gestures, which merely create difficulties and lack of co-ordination in Bosnia?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. In particular, I do not think that flamboyant gestures are of help at this time. There is a need for care, caution and co-ordination, and I promise my right hon. Friend that we have those objectives in mind.

Mr. A. J. Beith: When the Prime Minister was arguing at those rather unproductive conferences for non-inflationary growth, did he hear floating to him across the seas the siren voices of those in his own party who believe that we should devalue sterling and never mind the inflationary consequences? Did it occur to him that the countries with which he was dealing have not suffered recession so long and so deeply as we have, and that the policies which gave us that earlier and deeper recession were supported by those now calling on him to devalue—the massive Lawson credit boom and the failure to invest in key areas in the supply side of the economy?

The Prime Minister: The internal political situation in the United Kingdom did not feature high in our discussions while we were looking more generally at the problems of the world economy. The right hon. Gentleman will know that I believe that the exchange rate mechanism is an anti-inflationary discipline, and I believe that it is the right one. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out our position with admirable clarity last Friday.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and the United Kingdom initiative on Yugoslavia, particularly the proposal to help the children in that tragedy.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who have been calling for instability of exchange rates and, therefore, higher inflation, are the very people who, several

years ago, were very much against our joining the exchange rate mechanism at a more propitious moment when some of today's problems would not have arisen?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure that I can add to what I said to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). No one expected that an anti-inflationary policy would be easy in every respect; it never has been, and it is not now. It is absolutely imperative, however, that we do not duck the necessity of bringing inflation down to a level below that of our competitors—as low as we can get, to nil if possible—and seek to keep it there. It is from that basis that we shall be best able to secure sustainable growth, not in the short term but in the long term.

Mr. Tony Benn: Does the Prime Minister recognise that although we support humanitarian measures and note his caution about military involvement, he must answer a specific question before the House goes into recess at the end of the week? Will he assure the House that there will be no military involvement in Yugoslavia—by land, sea or air forces, or bases under our control—without the consent of the House of Commons? A long history shows that it is easy to get into conflict but difficult to get out of it, and memories of similar conflicts go back a long way. Will he give the House a specific assurance that British troops and bases will not be involved until the House has heard the case for it from the responsible Minister and has had an opportunity to register its feelings?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we already have 300 personnel in Bosnia and I made it clear a moment ago that we have no plans to put further personnel there. However, I cannot be certain precisely what will happen during the recess and I would be unwise to give a blanket assurance to the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot do so because I simply do not know what events will occur. I am extremely cautious about further involvement in Yugoslavia for the reasons which the Leader of the Opposition set out and which I fully endorse. Nevertheless, I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a banket assurance about what may happen in future circumstances which are not yet known.

Mr. John Biffen: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's remarks about the Uruguay round and the general agreement on tarrifs and trade. When my right hon. Friend made his economic appraisal and judgment at the Munich meeting, did he conclude that German interest rates are at an appropriate level? If so, and as our interest rate policy can now be characterised as "Waiting for Helmut", when does he expect those interest rates to fall?

The Prime Minister: That is predominantly a matter for the Bundesbank and the Germans, not for me. I remind my right hon. Friend that, since we have become members of the exchange rate mechanism, the United Kingdom has cut its rates nine times while the Germans have raised theirs four times.

Mr. Stuart Bell: The House will welcome paragraphs 37, 38 and 39 of the Helsinki communique, dealing with security and co-operation in the Mediterranean. We would welcome the creation of such a body in addition to the conference on security and


co-operation in Europe as we know it today. Does the Prime Minister agree that difficulties would arise in relation to the peace process in the middle east and United Nations involvement in Cyprus if a new body were created in the middle east where, according to the communiqué, the problems are entirely different?

The Prime Minister: I think that we can carry on with both. I see no particular difficulty in doing that. As the hon. Gentleman mentions Cyprus, I should say that I hope to see President Vassiliou of Cyprus later this evening and the United Nations-sponsored talks between the separate parties in Cyprus will continue in New York later this week. Some progress has been made, but there is clearly some way to go. The prospects for moving towards a settlement in Cyprus are better today than they have been for some time.

Sir Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the decision to concentrate on the GATT negotiations during our presidency is of great importance and to be widely welcomed? If no further progress can be achieved, however, does it not bring into question the very existence of the common agricultural policy as a means of support for farmers?
Does my right hon. Friend also accept that no easy fix can be gained by devaluing sterling within the exchange rate mechanism and that to do so might bring about a financial accident?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's second point. Throughout the years, we have seen that currency devaluations—in this country or elsewhere—lead only to short-term gains which are rapidly eaten up. We then find ourselves in a less competitive position. I therefore agree entirely on the importance of maintaining the value of the currency. On my hon. Friend's earlier point, we must continue to do all that we can to reach a GATT settlement as speedily as possible. The agreement that has been reached on the common agricultural policy will help us towards reaching a GATT settlement, and the expectation that one will be reached this year is well founded. I believe that the United Kingdom could reach a settlement within a single day, so close are we to a settlement, others find themselves less readily able to agree to a settlement, but I have no doubt that, with the right political instruction, the negotiators could swiftly reach a settlement of the Uruguay round.

Mr. Peter Shore: Surely the Prime Minister recognises that the current world economic problem is not inflation but deflation. In the Munich declaration, he committed himself to policies to assist growth and employment. If there is to be any relationship between ends and means, he must do something about the exceptionally high real rates of interest which are now squeezing the life out of British industry, and also about the exchange rate, which simply is not competitive. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise those facts? Why does he not do something to assist the British economy, and to arrest the process which is plunging us into ever deeper recession?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is right about the exchange rate not being competitive, I fail to see why our exports are running at record levels. As for his

earlier point about inflation and deflation, he will know that on more than one occasion since the second world war Governments have reflated at precisely the wrong moment, and recreated exactly the problems that they were seeking to solve. We are not prepared to do that again.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), I welcome the accent that my right hon. Friend has placed on the importance of GATT. He mentioned the narrow gap between GATT and the common agricultural policy. Can he give an idea of any initiatives that he hopes to launch to bring about the political directions that he mentioned when replying to my hon. Friend?

The Prime Minister: The GATT negotiations for the European Community are conducted by the Commission. We currently hold the presidency of the European Council, and I assure my hon. Friend that we shall press the Commission to reach an agreement within Europe, and to negotiate on the essential difficulties which remain with the Americans as speedily as possible.

Mr. Alex Salmond: To follow the question asked by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), as there must have been some discussion at the G7 summit about the prevailing level of interest rates in western Europe, and as the Prime Minister must have made some observations about it to the German Chancellor. would the right hon. Gentleman care to confide in the House about those observations? Does he accept that the position of sterling within the exchange rate mechanism is the only restriction on our policy of reducing the real level of interest rates?

The Prime Minister: When we remained outside the exchange rate mechanism, our interest rates went up to 15 per cent. and stayed at that level for some time. Since we joined the mechanism, our interest rates have fallen by a third—from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent.—while German interest rates have risen. The interest rate differential with Germany is now about ⅓ per cent.—the lowest for more than a decade. As for long-term interest rates, which are so critical for investment, the gap between the United Kingdom and Germany on 10-year rates has more than halved since we joined the exchange rate mechanism. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), the United Kingdom has cut its interest rate nine times while Germany has raised its rate four times.

Sir Richard Body: During the discussions, did my right hon. Friend raise the issue of the present trade barriers against eastern Europe?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I did. I also said, particularly to my European colleagues, that I wanted the association agreements to be extended, and that I wanted association agreements with eastern Europe to be in operation before being individually ratified by all our European partners. That would be a great help to eastern Europe. Eastern Europe in the wider sense of G7 also figured significantly in our discussions.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: How much do these summits cost? This is the first time that summits have merged into one another. They gallivant around the world


three or four times a year; now they are running from Munich to Helsinki and hack again. We are seeing what is being described as a range of summits.
The Prime Minister said during the election campaign, "Elect a Tory Government and everything in the garden will be rosy." Now he says that our exports are high. If our interest rates have come down and Germany's have gone up, why is our rate of exchange against the German mark down to DM 2·85 today? Before the general election, it was well over DM 2·90.
Instead of gallivanting around the world, it is high time that the Prime Minister did something about this country. He should cut interest rates by two percentage points and get out of the exchange rate mechanism.

The Prime Minister: I do not think, after careful consideration, that I will take the hon. Gentleman's advice on the subject—

Mr. Skinner: I do not expect you to.

The Prime Minister: Then the hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed. He will be pleased to know that the costs of the Munich summit were largely paid by the German Government.

Mr. Paul Channon: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations began as long ago as the last British presidency, and that on that occasion there was an active role for our presidency in bringing the French in line with Community policy? Can he therefore say what initiatives he will take, as he intends to make this a high priority of the British presidency? Will he, for instance, hold a Council or a special series of Councils to reach agreement among Community countries?

The Prime Minister: I would certainly not exclude any of those options, but in the first instance it may be better to proceed by bilateral discussion with our European partners rather than by collective discussion. I assure my right hon. Friend that we shall take part in those discussions so as to put the European Community in a position to conclude the negotiations as speedily as possible.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Has the Prime Minister seen the comment which seems to have been made by a member of the Bundesbank to the effect that countries which find themselves in difficulty with German interest rates should consider devaluing their currencies? In the light of the meeting of the Bundesbank this Thursday, which may result in a further increase in German interest rates, what will the Prime Minister do to ensure that our interest rates eventually come down to a more sensible level?

The Prime Minister: I have not seen that comment, if it was made, but in any event, any decision on that is not for a German official to make.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. Friend explain to the Opposition and to the House the relationship between lower inflation and higher employment?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend invites me to point out, there is a clear relationship between low inflation, encouraging investment and the creation of jobs,

and higher employment. Until we get that very low level of inflation, we shall not have the competitiveness and the job creation that we all want.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Prime Minister will be aware of my parliamentary question to him for reply last week about the important recent communiqué of the Cairns group Ministers in regard to the Uruguay round. While I appreciate that he could not reply then, will he now make a statement specifically on the outcome of the G7 summit in terms of what the Cairns group Ministers are seeking?

The Prime Minister: The Cairns group was represented at the G7 summit by the Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney. I have no doubt that he will report back to the group. There are no real difficulties for the Cairns group in the conclusions of the summit or in the position taken on the GATT round. There is little of difficulty for the Cairns group in the present proposals for GATT; I believe that it could sign up to them speedily. There are some small difficulties, but they could be readily resolved.
The substantive difficulty holding up the GATT round is the agricultural difficulty between the European Community and the United States—essentially on internal support and external subsidies. Those are not the only issues at stake, but they are the two key issues. Once they are unlocked and agreement reached on them, the rest of the GATT round will fall speedily into place.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when this country was last in a comparable state of recession, in 1981, we got out of the problem and set off a period of sustained growth by reducing interest rates, which we were able to do because the pound sterling was floating? Although it floated down at the time, almost to $1·50, it floated up again shortly afterwards and nobody talked about devaluation. Should we not now do the same as it is absolutely clear that the justification for the exchange rate mechanism is political and not economic?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot share all my hon. Friend's views, although I know the force with which he holds them. Quite apart from the fact that the exchange rate mechanism is at the centre of our anti-inflationary strategy, there is a real risk that if we left the exchange rate mechanism the net result would be that interest rates would rise rather than fall. That would not be remotely helpful to the British economy. It would therefore not be right to leave the exchange rate mechanism and float sterling. It is right to maintain the exchange rate that we have because it will deliver the low inflation that for some years my hon. Friend and all my right hon. and hon. Friends have continually wished to see. We are making great progress on inflation and I have no intention of throwing it away.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Was there any debate in G7 about the damaging effect on industry and employment of the rather manic pursuit of price stability and zero inflation by some European leaders, especially the Prime Minister himself'? Does he agree that, with little prospect of wage increases, no prospect of house price increases, and the threat of unemployment, Essex man will not be too enthusiastic about price stability?

The Prime Minister: I seem to remember that remarks about Essex man just a few months ago proved spectacularly inaccurate. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about manic pursuit of low inflation. I would rather pursue low inflation than let inflation rip, with the consequences that we have seen before.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the quiet role that he played at both international conferences? It is necessary for that to be recorded. Does he recall that, before the Helsinki conference, the first of the parliamentary CSCE assemblies, meeting in Budapest, had 277 members representing 51 nations? Will he ensure that Britain plays a leading role in the establishment of that assembly so that Parliament may have a considerable say and the CSCE is not left just to officials or heads of Government?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I will certainly take on board my hon. Friend's points. Some valuable progress was made at the CSCE summit, especially the agreement that for the first time disputes within states can be addressed. That is a step forward. The decision to have a high commissioner for minorities, to monitor the treatment of minorities and to sound the alarm when things get worse, is a further useful innovation. The fact that the CSCE can now mandate peacekeeping activities will help to bring stability when political negotiations fail. Those are all moves forward, and they all came from the meeting at Helsinki.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: In terms of the humanitarian and peacekeeping initiatives in the former republic of Yugoslavia, will Her Majesty's Government impress upon those involved the urgent need to protect the interests of soldiers taken prisoner in the conflicts? I wrote to the Prime Minister only last week urging him to intercede in the dreadful case of three Croatian soldiers who were sentenced to death by Serbian military authorities after the most appalling torture had been inflicted upon them. It is right to protect children, but soldiers taken prisoner should surely be entitled to certain basic rights.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair and good point. I promise to take it up and to raise the matters that he brings to our attention with the Red Cross and the United Nations. There should be no doubt among the combatants that the Geneva conventions apply.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in discussing defence with our allies, he continued to emphasise the enormous importance that this country places on the NATO alliance? Will he reassure me that, if there is closer co-operation on defence matters at European level, our commitment to NATO will not diminish?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that commitment. Of course, there was a NATO meeting on Friday as well as other meetings. There is no doubt that NATO has provided the defence of Europe for nearly 50 years and will continue to do so. All our experience shows that it would be damaging to European defence to undermine NATO, and the American pillar of NATO in particular. We have no intention of doing so,

although we believe that it is right for European nations to take a greater proportionate share of the collective defence of Europe.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: In respect of the ERM and the fixed exchange rate, is not the Prime Minister comparable with the driver of a moderately powered motor car driving up a hill which turns out to be rather steeper and longer than he thought, but who nevertheless refuses on principle to change down a gear? Would not the result be embarrassing to the driver, dangerous and embarrassing to the passengers, and dangerous to the other traffic on the road, and would not such a driver fail his driving test?

The Prime Minister: That is a very ingenious comparison, but I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. My response must be the same as that which I gave to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). There have been too many instances where Governments—I make no party point—have changed their policy at the wrong moment and sought reinflation at a moment when they should not have done so. We are making genuine progress on inflation, in both the headline and the underlying levels of inflation. We shall not change our policies—not out of stubbornness, but out of conviction.

Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me, as president of the Guild of Experienced Motorists, that far more accidents are caused by drivers chopping and changing in panic from the course on which they are proceeding? With regard to the GATT negotiations, will my right hon. Friend ensure that in the case of protectionism and interest rates he and all Ministers spell out to little Englanders that there is no solution in isolation from the rest of the world, and that we would suffer from such a policy more than anyone else?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right, and particularly so on his last point.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Prime Minister not draw a distinction between military action—that is to say, air cover—for the purposes of protecting humanitarian supplies flying into Sarajevo, and military action for the purposes of intervening with a view to resolving the dispute? Does he agree that in the case of the former there is no need to refer the matter to Parliament, but that there would have to be a parliamentary debate on the second option?

The Prime Minister: In what I said earlier I clearly drew that distinction between the desirability of air cover, which we shall provide in the circumstances that I have set out, and the desirability of intervening on the ground. I have said that it is not our policy to produce troops, and that I do not anticipate that we shall do so. However, I cannot be certain what events will occur. There is no sign of an agenda that will mean that we have troops involved. Indeed, I have expressly said that it is not our policy to use troops. However, I do not think that it would be wise for any Prime Minister to give the blanket assurance sought by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).

Mr. Jim Lester: My right hon. Friend mentioned discussions in Munich on the debt situation both of middle-income countries and of those which come under the Trinidad terms, which he proposed in a former


incarnation. Will he give the House more information about the success of the policy on middle-income countries, which looks promising, and far more seriously on what progress is being made on the Trinidad terms, which are far more critical in view of their effect on the lives of impoverished countries?

The Prime Minister: Agreement was made that the Paris club would look at dealing with the debts of a number of lower-middle-income countries. I will let my hon. Friend have a note of which countries are involved. They will have to be dealt with by the Paris club on a case by case basis, but there was agreement that some progress can now be made. The summit welcomed the start that we had made on implementation of the Trinidad terms. Thus far, seven countries have benefited from 50 per cent. debt reduction and there will be more to follow.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What did the Prime Minister mean in terms of practical help to Scottish Nuclear and others with twinning arrangements when he spoke about supplementary help to nuclear power stations in the Soviet Union and Bulgaria? In the corridors of Munich, did the Prime Minister have an opportunity to ask Mr. Kohl how it is that, for six whole months, the Bundeskriminalamt has sat on vital evidence about Lockerbie? Is not some explanation due from the German police as to whether that was sheer incompetence or wilfulness?

The Prime Minister: I had no discussions on the latter point. On the former point, about nuclear power stations, we agreed a programme of action covering operational safety improvements, technical improvements to plants based on safety assessments, and an improvement to regulatory regimes. The programme that we had in mind is also designed to improve longer-term safety by examining the scope of replacing less safe plants through alternative energy. It is a massive programme, and the amount of money committed to it is likely to be $680 million to $700 million. That will be partly paid for with bilateral contributions, the sum total of which is not yet certain. The balance will be met out of the multilateral fund. The purpose of having the multilateral fund is to be able to cover those areas which are missed in the individual bilateral agreements made between the Russians or other countries, as the case may be, and the donor countries.

Mr. Tony Marlow: If the Germans are prepared to be bad Europeans by screwing up all the other European economies through their cavalier attitude to the exchange rate mechanism, why should we be good Europeans and remain members of that mechanism? To put it another way, in this particular, if my right hon. Friend had evidence that being at the heart of Europe was to tear the heart out of the United Kingdom economy, what would he do about it?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend sets up a premise with which I am unable to agree. We are in the exchange rate mechanism because the Government judge that it is where we should be, in the interests of a counterinflationary strategy for the United Kingdom. That is why we are there. Nobody compelled us to go there. We took a judgment. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of the day and I. as the then Chancellor of the Exchequer,

took the judgment that it was right to enter the ERM to bring down inflation and maintain the stability of our exchange rate.
My hon. Friend mentioned Germany. It is noteworthy that the Germans have maintained currency stability for a long time and, as a result, have produced an extremely powerful economy. I do not accept that the deutschmark is forever the benchmark of the exchange rate mechanism. That benchmark is the strongest currency in the mechanism, and we are determined that sterling will become an extremely strong currency. We cannot do that by cutting and running from the policy when it is beginning to succeed.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Prime Minister has referred to the managing of potential conflicts and the issuing of early warnings of such conflicts. Are there not already enough early warnings about possible imminent conflicts in other territories, such as Kosovo and Macedonia? How differently does the right hon. Gentleman think that we shall handle those matters from the way in which we have mishandled the Bosnian conflict?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that there have been early warning systems in quite the way now envisaged in the CSCE proposals. There are particular difficulties with a conflict which arises within what was a single country—the former Yugoslavia. Conflicts which arise between countries are obviously much more easily dealt with through external assistance. The proposals that we have set up will not solve or hold back every conflict, but they are certainly an advance and well worth developing.

Sir Dudley Smith: As one of Parliament's representatives at the new CSCE Assembly, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether is is aware that at its recent meeting the CSCE was unanimous in its view that the strongest possible pressure should be brought to bear on all the warring elements in Yugoslavia, just short of direct military intervention?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that point to my attention. Under the proposals, the CSCE will have the ability to mandate a range of peacekeeping activities in future, from monitoring to full-scale forces.

Mr. Ron Leighton: At the G7 meeting, did the Prime Minister bear in mind that what caused our recession was the huge hike in interest rates? Does he understand that present real rates of interest—adjusted for inflation—are twice as high as when we joined the exchange rate mechanism? It is those high rates which are prolonging the recession, and we shall never get out of it while we have them. Will the right hon. Gentleman please consider using interest rates for the purpose of our domestic economy instead of for the arid dogma of the exchange rate mechanism?

The Prime Minister: We have to look at the interests of our domestic economy in the round, in both the medium and the long term, rather than in the short term only. That is precisely what the Government's policy does.

Mr. David Atkinson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his proposals for a citizens' Europe designed to avoid ethnic conflicts in Europe in future? Can he give us further clarification


about the proposed CSCE peacekeeping role as a last resort when all else fails? Does he mean peacemaking? If so, which organisation would do it—NATO, the WEU or the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: I would not draw a distinction between those bodies. The CSCE will have an enabling role and it could approach each or all of the organisations that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the Prime Minister agree that in relation to Yugoslavia, it is important always to be a stage or two ahead of the game? While we are rightly concerned with the problems in Bosnia- Herzegovina, should we not also be concerned about the problems of ethnic minorities in other areas of the former Yugoslavia? Did the CSCE address itself in any way to the problems of the ethnic minorities within Croatia, especially those who live in eastern Slovenia and Krajina? What is the Government's policy towards those parts of the country that we have now recognised?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes some important points, with which I agree. We intend to support Lord Carrington's proposals for autonomy. We are concerned about the minorities in almost all the component parts of the republic of the former Yugoslavia. On the point about keeping ahead of the game and determining policy, the hon. Gentleman may care to know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be visiting all the republics within the next few days.

Mrs. Angela Knight: What steps, if any, were taken at the G7 meeting to take forward the important environmental agreements reached at Rio?

The Prime Minister: Immediately after the Rio conference, I wrote to all the G7 heads of Government with an eight-point plan to follow up the agreements reached at Rio. That plan was endorsed at the Munich summit and will now be carried forward. Therefore, within the member states of the G7, a further momentum has been given to the agreements reached at Rio.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Prime Minister aware that, despite what he has said, there is bound to be a great deal of concern about any further escalation of British involvement in what used to be Yugoslavia? However, people accept—I certainly do—that what is now being done in terms of humanitarian supplies is right. I am sure that it has the approval of the vast majority of people in this country.
In what circumstances will the House be recalled if there is an escalation of British involvement? In these few days before the House rises, it is important for the right hon. Gentleman to promise that the House will be recalled, should the event that I have described materialise.

The Prime Minister: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the way in which matters are developing in

Yugoslavia; the position is worrying. We have watched the developments over a number of weeks. There can be no certainty that there will be no further flashpoints in other parts of the republics of the former Yugoslavia. However. as I have said, I do not envisage that, as a result of those flashpoints, British troops will be involved on the ground. If and when such a circumstance arises, I shall consider what action is appropriate.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): During the G7 conference in Munich, was my right hon. Friend involved at any stage in discussions about the remarkable disparity in interest rates between the United States of America and the four European members of G7? If so, was it observed that if the United States—which is still, unfortunately, in recession—had persisted with the western European and British policy of high levels of real interest rates, it would now be in slump?

The Prime Minister: Those points were not discussed in the precise form suggested by my hon. Friend. It is true that interest rates are lower in the United States, although not so low as we might think from the discount rate and the rates at which people can borrow for business purposes. We must also take account of the size of the United States fiscal deficit and other aspects of its economy. It is equally true that, as the Americans have repeatedly reduced their interest rates over the past few years, that has not produced the kick start to the economy that many people expected.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: From what the Prime Minister has said so far, can we deduce that he is setting his face against any reduction in interest rates because he believes that, at this stage in the war against inflation, we need a futile gesture such as the sacrifice of a further million jobs to ad to the million already lost since we joined the exchange rate mechanism? Is not the right hon. Gentleman showing all the prejudices of his predecessor, but none of her flexibility?

The Prime Minister: I know that my right hon. Friend will welcome the hon. Gentleman's tribute to her flexibility, which was not evident from him when she stood at the Dispatch Box. The hon. Gentleman should not misstate the Government's position on interest rates. We have reduced interest rates by five percentage points over the past two years. When it is appropriate, we shall reduce interest rates, but it must be when it is appropriate and when we can sustain the exchange value of sterling and still reduce interest rates. That must be the key part of the decision that we have to make. When it is appropriate, we shall, of course, reduce interest rates.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. As hon. Members know, I take points of order after Standing Order No. 20 applications.

Royal London Hospital (Redundancies)

Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement of £4 million cuts involving up to 600 redundancies at the Royal London hospital trust.
It is a specific matter affecting the reduction of hospital services in the borough of Tower Hamlets. Six hundred jobs, including those of doctors, nurses and ancillary staff, are to go—about 12 per cent. of those employed at the Royal London hospital.
The matter is important both to those who work in the health service and to the community they serve. It comes on top of the decisions made only last month to close the accident and emergency department at the Mile End hospital and to reduce and rationalise other hospital services in the borough.
In Tower Hamlets, with our above average health needs, we are not over-provided with health services; we are seriously under-provided. The cuts will only lengthen the long waiting lists which now exist.
Last Friday's announcement was made without first informing, let alone consulting, either the health authority or the community health council. The immediate cause of the problem is that the Royal London hospital has been unable to sell £4 million-worth of its much needed services and now, one third of the way through the current financial year, has to make emergency cuts to balance the books.
Short-term financial pressures, not a serious study of the needs of the people of Tower Hamlets, have dictated the decisions. It is urgent, therefore, that the Government now provide extra funds to prevent large and unplanned cuts in hospital services, not only at the Royal London hospital, but elsewhere in London, at least until the Tomlinson report has been completed and until sensible decisions based on its findings have been taken.

Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. As he knows, I have to give my decision without giving any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit the application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to item 21 on page 1258 of today's Order Paper? The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) seeks to insert my name as a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and to delete the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey).
Standing Order No. 104 requires
Any Member intending to propose that certain Members be members of a select committee, or be discharged from a select committee, shall give notice of the names of Members whom he intends so to propose, shall endeavour to ascertain previously whether each such Member will give his attendance on the committee, and shall endeavour to give notice of any Member whom he proposes to be discharged from the committee.
I received no such notice, and I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun was not told by the hon. Member for Tayside, North that he intended to have him discharged from the Committee. However, I received a rather charming letter from the hon. Member for Tayside, North after the event, which opens with the words
Dear Norman,
I have transgressed.
That has great appeal to me because I am a Scottish Presbyterian and those who have transgressed add up to the sum total of humanity.
The hon. Gentleman went on to appeal at the end of his letter
Please forgive me.
I am afraid that forgiveness is not within my gift or that of any of us in the House—and I can assure you of that, Madam Speaker, as a Scottish Presbyterian.
I hope that you will use this opportunity, Madam Speaker, to at least reiterate the fact that hon. Members should act with good manners towards each other and should not seek to add or delete names on the Order Paper without fulfilling the conditions of Standing Order No. 104.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am quite capable of dealing with a Standing Order between two Scottish Members. May I hear from the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)?

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) is wrong in one respect. I wrote to him before I took any action. Unfortunately, one did not know the names until Thursday morning. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman before I went to the Table Office to table my amendments very late on Thursday evening. I have also spoken to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), the other Member involved. In fact, I spent all of Saturday with him.
I tabled the amendments on the Order Paper because I believe that there are aspects of selection, election and the election of the Speaker which must be addressed. I thought that that was the opportunity for the House to address those matters, and that was the vehicle that I used to get those matters addressed.

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) for giving me notice of his point of order. He has done his homework and he knows that Standing Order No. 104 requires an hon. Member to
endeavour to ascertain
whether any hon. Member whom he intends to propose for a Select Committee
will give his attendance on the committee",
and that should be done before notice is tabled of a proposed nomination.
I ask the hon. Member for Tayside, North whether he took steps, before he tabled his amendments, to consult the hon. Members for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), whom he wishes to be omitted from the Committee? Did the hon. Member for Tayside, North consult those two hon. Members? Did he get a clear indication from them before he tabled the amendment? That is the question that should be answered. Is the answer yes or no?

Mr. Bill Walker: The answer clearly is that yes, I have discussed the matter with both hon. Members. No, I did not discuss in detail what I planned to do, because I did not have the time to do so and very few Scottish Members, other than those on the First Scottish Standing Committee, were here on Thursday.

Madam Speaker: This can be touched upon in general debate later. However, this is not simply a matter of common courtesy, although I am very keen to uphold common courtesy in the House. This is a matter of upholding our Standing Orders, and that I intend to do. Therefore, I rule that I am not able to select the two amendments, and that is the end of the matter.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There may have been another transgression, this time on the part of the Leader of the House. As a matter of common courtesy, last Thursday I telephoned the office of the Leader of the House to express an interest that, in business questions, he would make an announcement about European Standing Committee B, chaired by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), and the Libyan order. At column 473, he announced the business of 13 to 16 July, and said:
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday"—
and Hansard states "21 October". It was not at all clear. Indeed, from recollection, I think that he said "on Wednesday",
to consider European Community Document No. 5894/92 concerning relations with Libya.
He went on to say:
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that the provisional business for the first week after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:"—[Official Report, 9 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 473.]
He then listed that business. We might be forgiven for thinking that the Libyan order, which was originally arranged for tomorrow, was going to be held on Wednesday.
The urgency is this: the Scottish police were incandescent with anger when they discovered what has happened in the courts in New York on the Pan Am wilful atrocity—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the merits and demerits, which I cannot listen

to. He has put his point of order to me. The Leader of the House provides information for the House, and it is of course for the Chairmen of Committees to determine the time of their sittings. The hon. Gentleman has been very explicit in his point of order, and I am sure that it has been taken on board by the Leader of the House.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. There can be nothing further to that point of order, because I am now dealing with it. The Leader of the House has heard what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has had to say, and I cannot allow a debate on a point of order.

Mr. David Winnick: At a later stage in our proceedings today, we shall discuss departmental Select Committees, and set out on the Order Paper are the names that have been put forward on behalf of the Committee of Selection. You will remember, Madam Speaker, that when those Committees were set up and approved by the House in June 1979, they were meant to oversee and to inquire into the work of the various Departments; hence the reason why they came into existence and will be re-established in this Parliament.
Would it therefore be right for Ministers, under any kind of instruction, to decide who should be on those Committees? Cabinet Ministers' own Departments will be scrutinised by the proposed Select Committees. I therefore ask you to rule on whether, in the circumstances, that would be right in what is recognised as a free vote. Labour Members were not whipped on the issue, and Conservative Members, I understand, have not been whipped, but I understand that Ministers have been asked to support the motions from the Committee of Selection.

Madam Speaker: The whipping of various parties in the House is nothing whatsoever to do with the Chair. The hon. Gentleman knows that very well. I have no idea what the whipping is tonight or whether it exists or not. That is not my business. I am present anyway, irrespective of whether hon. Members are present. I shall be here for that business. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point of order, it is a matter entirely for the House and for every individual Member of the House, whether a Minister, Back Bencher or whatever, to make up his or her mind. Of course, hon. Members are free to go into the Division Lobbies on the matter.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—

Madam Speaker: Is this a separate point of order?

Mr. Walker: May I ask you, Madam Speaker, to use your influence? You will understand the compressed time scale involved from the time when the orders were published, to the time when hon. Members may table amendments, and today. I ask you to use your influence in matters as contentious as membership of Select Committees and ensure that more time is given so that hon. Members can fulfil the necessity—I accept your ruling—to consult others involved.

Madam Speaker: Yes, I quite understand that there needs to be a period of consultation, and I have noted the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Bernie Grant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am a member of European Standing


Committee B. Two weeks ago, we received our usual notification by letter from No. 10 Downing street, stating that, on Wednesday, we would discuss Libyan sanctions. It seems as though the situation has changed, and there has been no proper explanation. Could you advise us where we go from here?

Dr. Godman: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I be allowed to explain that there is informal notification of meetings of European Standing Committees A and B? My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) is right. We were given the usual informal notice that, as members of Standing Committee B, we would meet this week to discuss relations with Libya. To put it bluntly the matter has been put on the back burner. The Government do not want the debate, because a Minister would have to come to the meeting and be cross-examined by the members of the Committee. Something curious is going on here.

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, an informal notice is a means of notification. It is informal until there has been formal notification of the matter.

Dr. John Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It seems curious that, when the Leader of the House announced the business for this week he apparently—according to Hansard—mentioned the business for Wednesday 21 October in the announcement of this week's business. He subsequently made a second statement about the business including that for the week of Wednesday 21 October. It seems an odd way to announce things. I wonder whether, when the Leader of the House made that statement he said "Wednesday" or "Wednesday 21 October".

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Mr. Marlow. Is it further to that point of order?

Mr. Tony Marlow: It is further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and your ruling. Supposing—

Madam Speaker: Order. If I have given a ruling, I do not take points of order retrospectively. I have given a ruling, and I understood that the Leader of the House wished to speak. He may well be able to clear the matter up for us.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Clearly, in the light of the points that have been made, it is sensible that I should say a word further to the point of order. In response to an informal request from an hon. Member, I carefully checked the words that I had in front of me, which, indeed, referred to Wednesday 21 October. I have no reason to doubt that I used those words, as recorded in Hansard. Obviously, I am sorry if it has given rise to some confusion among hon. Members; that is the last purpose that I had in mind.

Mr. Marlow: On a new point of order, Madam Speaker. Just supposing that members of the Government, who also happened to be Members of Parliament and of this honourable House, all voted one way this evening, or assuming that members of the Government, who also happen to be members of this House, were disproportionately present this evening when the voting took place, would you look upon that as a coincidence or something else?

Madam Speaker: I would look upon it as the sort of fairy story that I used to have read to me when I first joined my political party.

BILL PRESENTED

PRIVATE SECURITY (REGISTRATION)

Mr. Bruce George, supported by Mr. Robert Allason, Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Ms. Glenda Jackson, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. John Home Robertson, Sir Keith Speed, and Mr. Ken Livingstone presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a Private Security Registration Council and to give that Council powers and functions for the regulation of firms offering private security services and of persons employed as private security agents; to require the registration of such firms and persons with the Council; to impose requirements upon such firms and persons; to make provision for training of persons employed as private security agents; to make provision for compensation to be paid in respect of inadequately insured death or injury arising from the activities of such firms and persons; to define offences and specify penalties; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 13 November and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

Sittings of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I hope that I can give some idea of the spirit in which I approach the debate by saying that I hope—subject, of course, slightly to the will of the House—to conform in my speech today with the recommendation in the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House that both Government and Opposition Front-Bench speeches should, if possible, be confined to 20 minutes. I shall do my best to restrict myself to that ration.
The purpose of today's debate is to provide an opportunity for the House to express its views on the report from the Committee so excellently chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). He brought to that task the experience acquired through many years of service in the House, including not only senior ministerial office but, not least, a time as Chief Whip. I remember that time clearly, because I was then probably the most junior Government Whip. I learned a great deal from my right hon. Friend. He now joins that select band whose name becomes so firmly associated with a report that almost no one can remember its formal title. Indeed, if all goes as he would wish, there may even be pressure to erect a statute to him in some part of the building. [Interruption.] I am not making a commitment this afternoon.
The previous debate on 2 March gave the previous House an early opportunity to express its views on the report. In replying on that occasion, my predecessor, to whom I also pay tribute for his initiative in proposing the appointment of the Committee and his input to it, said that there would need to be further detailed consideration of the recommendations. But he also underlined his view that the opinion of the new House would also have to be taken into account before any firm decisions were made about how the issue should be taken forward. I believe that he was right to express that view.
After all, this Parliament is barely three months old. There have been many changes in its membership. New Members are still coming to grips with the premises, the customs and the existing procedures. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said in opening the earlier debate:
when considering altering parliamentary procedure, it is important to seek to do it on the basis of concensus".—[Official Report, 2 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 74.]
That is an important point. The proposals in the report are more far-reaching than is realised in some quarters. I shall develop that point later. However, I make no apology for maintaining the view that the new House of Commons should have the chance to have a wide-ranging discussion before we attempt to table substantive motions.
It is all the more important that the new House should discuss the matter because, as my predecessor said in his evidence to the Committee and in his speech in the previous debate, changes will not work without the co-operation of the House as a whole. If they are to work in practice, it is essential that the whole House understands what is involved in operating on the basis proposed by the report and that we can be sure that there is support

throughout the House for making the changes work. However, we can draw some encouragement—perhaps a lot of encouragement—from the fact that the report of the Committee was unanimous.
Before I turn to specific recommendations, it may be helpful to give a brief over-view of the report. The recommendations go far wider than merely reducing the hours that the House sits. In an attempt to find a reduction in hours which could be delivered, the Committee has made recommendations affecting the timing and handling of Government business as well as Private Members' business.
The most important of the Committee's recommendations could be crisply listed as follows: to sit on Wednesday from 10.30 am without interruptions, to take Private Members' business other than Private Members' Bills until 2.30 pm; to take 10 Fridays a session as non-sitting days, to provide much-needed extra time for MPs' constituency duties; to finish at 7 pm on the Thursdays before the non-sitting Fridays; to take only non-controversial business—a point which raises difficult issues—after 7 pm on all other Thursdays; to restrict fairly considerably the circumstances in which the House would sit beyond 10 pm on any day, even on Government business; and to provide for the automatic timetabling of all Government Bills.
It may be helpful if I indicate how I hope to proceed. I propose in the next few minutes to set out, I hope in reasonable detail, the Government's thoughts on the recommendations in the report. I will then, as I hope I need hardly say, pay close attention to the views expressed in the debate, with a view to identifying a basis for agreement, which can then be discussed through the usual channels, with the aim of being in a position to table some substantive resolutions at an early stage after the House resumes in the autumn. I should, however, emphasise that many of the recommendations would involve complex Standing Order amendments which may not be easy to frame.

Mr. Peter Shore: Is the Leader of the House sure that he interpreted the report correctly when he said that it proposed the timetabling of all Bills? Surely the proposal was for timetabling Bills other than those taken on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Newton: My understanding is that the report envisaged timetabling of Government Bills generally. If the right hon. Gentleman, who is experienced in such matters, takes a different view, undoubtedly he will elaborate it during the debate.
The House may appreciate my next point, which is partly directed at those who examine our proceedings from outside. It seems important to view the report and the matters with which it deals not simply as a question of shorter sitting or working hours. There is far more to it than the prospect of earlier rising, some morning sittings, or what in some quarters might be seen as Fridays off. The proposals in the report need to be seen in the context of the overall demands made on Members of Parliament.
A Member's time is not spent solely in the Chamber, in Committee or at Westminster—important though those aspects of the role are. As the report makes clear, one significant change in the pressure on the average Member has occurred in what is expected of him or her in constituency work and duties. We are talking about the


balance between different aspects of the job, rather than seeking to make it entail less work overall, and it is important that we should emphasise that in our discussions.
The report draws attention to the principle of balance between Government, Opposition and Back Benchers. I emphasise in particular, as does the report, that the Government of the day, whatever their colour, should have a reasonable expectation of getting their reasonable business. That means that they must have sufficient time, or procedures must be so arranged, for them to implement the commitments on which they are elected, and their programme as set out in the Queen's Speech each Session.
But that—this is no less important—must be balanced by the right of the House, groups in it, Members and, in particular, of the Opposition to have a proper opportunity to scrutinise and, where they wish, to oppose Government business, especially legislation.
Our procedures rest on a balance between those considerations. It is a delicate balance, in which the use of time and the scope for delay have sometimes been seen as the Opposition's main weapons. It follows that that change must be carefully balanced if we are to maintain the basic democratic values which our procedures exist to protect.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is not merely the main weapon. Often, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, it is the only weapon of the Opposition. Is that not a charter for the castration of the Opposition?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is very familiar with the procedures and techniques of the House. He is expressing a view about one of the propositions underlying the report. I note that, and shall be interested to find out whether it is followed by other hon. Members from either side of the House.
Thus the Government's basic approach to the report is that, if the legitimate need of the elected Government to progress and have enacted their legislative programme and to secure their other essential business is accepted, and appropriately reflected in the procedures of the House, the Government would be more than happy for the working practices of the House to become more civilised—I suppose that that is one way to describe it—in terms of hours of work, and in other ways.
The central equation cannot be ignored, however, and the House needs to go into that with its eyes open and to appreciate the implications. If there is to be less time, proceedings will have to be more structured, debate may be less open-ended and the scope for obstruction could become more limited—which picks up the point that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) just raised.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not the biggest obstacle to changing the hours in this place, perhaps to 9 to 5, the fact that more than 200 Members of Parliament—who happen mainly to be Tory Members—have moonlighting jobs, making money in the boardrooms and the law courts? They cannot afford Parliament regularly to start at 9 in the morning because they want to be able to come here when it suits them, when they have finished in the City or the law courts, and to vote at 7 or 10 o'clock. That is the basic problem. It is not a question of merely playing around at the edges. The real problem is stopping moonlighting. Then we could get some regular hours.

Mr. Newton: It will not surprise the House to know that I do not readily accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the reasons for our existing procedures. Incidentally, it is also important to recognise, although it is not universally the case in all Parliaments which might be compared with this one, that members of the Executive—Ministers—are also Members of Parliament, it is an important feature of the way in which our Parliament and our democracy work, and has some relationship to the issue that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised.

Mr. David Harris: Some of us are getting heartily sick of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) constantly talking such rubbish. Most Conservative Members work just as hard as he does—[HON. MEMBERS: "Harder."] Most of us work harder in one respect at least, because most of us are members of Committees. I am on five Committees, whereas the hon. Member for Bolsover refuses to serve on them.

Mr. Skinner: I was on one last week.

Mr. Harris: That must have been an exception. In general, the hon. Member for Bolsover refuses to serve on Committees, which is where much of the work of the House is done.

Mr. Skinner: That is not true.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that it was clear from the response to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) that many hon. Members, certainly on the Conservative side of the House, have some sympathy with his arguments. My aim in responding to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was to seek—so far without avail—to keep the temperature down in the interests of rational discussion of the proposals.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Newton: I shall give way to the hon. Member.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Janet Fookes): Order. I am not clear to whom the Leader of the House was giving way, as an hon. Gentleman rose from each side.

Mr. Newton: I intended to give way to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. John Garrett: Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised an important matter. Many Members of the House, principally those on the Conservative Benches, have outside employment, and that is one reason why there is so much opposition to morning sittings. Will the Leader of the House give his view on the widespread use of outside employment by Members of Parliament?

Mr. Newton: I cannot add to my remarks in response to the hon. Member for Bolsover a few moments ago. It is by no means the case that Members on one side of the House alone combine a range of different roles, both in respect of their position as Members of Parliament and in other ways. By and large, those different responsibilities interact in a way that benefits the House and the service that Parliament provides.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that today is significant because the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has graced us with his


presence, even though it is out of prime television time? Does my right hon. Friend think that the hon. Gentleman's constituents might be interested to note that, whereas most of us are prepared to work in Select and Standing Committees and to spend time researching our contributions to them, all that the hon. Member for Bolsover looks forward to is £30,000 a year for a nine-to-five job?

Mr. Newton: As I said, one of my hopes is to try to keep the temperature down in the debate, although that hope looks a little forlorn. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not follow him. Nevertheless, I note his remarks carefully.

Mr. Peter Hain: I appreciate the desire of the Leader of the House to keep the temperature low. If we were designing Hours for the House, starting afresh in a modern parliamentary democracy, which is what we are supposed to be, is it conceivable that we would come up with the antiquated, anachronistic and ridiculous hours that we now sit?

Mr. Newton: It is difficult for me to say. I plead the basic proposition that I sought to make in response to his hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who is sitting beside the hon. Gentleman. Experience from various quarters such as local government, business, trade union activities and being a teacher—whatever it may be—is a considerable help to Members when they perform their duties in the House, as constituency Members of Parliament and in other ways. It would not be sensible if the continuation of that experience were cut off as soon as people became Members of the House. Our proceedings would be the loser if we went down that path.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Newton: I shall, but one of the reasons why I wryly referred to my aim of keeping my speech to 20 minutes is being revealed—that interventions make it singularly difficult to keep speeches to the length that hon. Members would wish.

Mr. Flynn: The Leader of the House has said that hon. Members on both sides of the House have outside interests. It is worth putting on record the fact that in the last Parliament, 14 per cent. of Labour Members had outside paid interests, whereas 85 per cent. of eligible Conservative Members had such interests. Does the Leader of the House agree that the situation would be clarified if hon. Members were to declare not only their interests but also the amounts of money received?

Mr. Newton: I am not sure that what the hon. Gentleman has just said adds hugely to our debate. I am tempted to observe that it merely confirms my view that Conservative Members are of exceptional value.

Mr. Derek Foster: Not to us.

Mr. Newton: I accept that they are not of exceptional value to the Labour Chief Whip, but they are of exceptional value in the role that they play in the House. In saying so, I do not seek in any way to diminish the

important contribution that the hon. Gentleman and many others play, with their particular types of expertise drawn from outside.
One of the keys to the balance that the Committee sought to establish is the automatic timetabling of Government legislation. I stress the word "timetabling" as it is important that this should be seen not as a guillotine—which is how we have traditionally thought of such a device—but rather as an attempt to agree, in a prescribed way, a systematic scheduling of the stages of a Bill to ensure organised debate and effective scrutiny. That might or might not mean less time overall being spent on any particular measure than is spent at present, but it could be expected—at least in the minds of those who made the proposal—to be more productive time. In particular, it could be expected to ensure that all parts of a Bill were examined in Committee in a way that our existing procedures have not always managed to achieve.
If the House is serious about reforming sitting hours, it must recognise that this proposal is an essential element in the balance of the whole report, and therefore crucial to an overall package of change.

Mr. Tony Marlow: With regard to automatic timetabling and the proposed change in hours, as well as other matters, can my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that consideration of the ratification of the Maastricht treaty will not influence the timing of the Government's recommendations? If it is proposed that there should be automatic timetabling, will that be subject to a vote in the House? If not, the Maastricht treaty might be timetabled automatically. without the House being able to express a view on it.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend may wish to develop that point in the course of the debate. Clearly, he may regard this as a reason for having reservations about the proposal. Indeed, for all I know, his reservations may well go wider than the measure to which he has referred. My purpose today is to describe the approach that the Government bring to the report, without seeking to pre-empt points about timing or about the detailed discussions that would have to take place to overcome some of the reservations that are being expressed in interventions.

Dr. John Cunningham: I urge the Leader of the House to avoid the trap that he seems to be setting for himself, or—to put it another way—the threat that he is issuing to the House. He seems to be saying that, if there can be no agreement on automatic timetabling, there can be no other changes—in other words, that this package must stand or fall as a whole. The nature of the report and of the changes makes it clear that that is not the case. In saying so, I express a personal view. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am in favour of the timetabling of legislation. However, I should not like him to suggest that no changes could be made unless there were agreement on automatic timetabling, insisted upon by the Government.

Mr. Newton: If there is any misunderstanding about that, I should like to clear it up. I do not want to put words in to the mouths of the report's authors, but I think that it is fair to say that the report, including all its recommendations—for example, those about hours, non-sitting days and the handling of business on Thursdays—sees this as a balanced package between timetabling and the proposals as a whole. That is not the


same as saying that, if it were not possible to make progress on timetabling—some reservations have already been stated very clearly—nothing at all could be done. Clearly, however, one's view of the balance of the report as a whole would be affected.

Mr. Shore: In relation to this point and the point about the Maastricht treaty, paragraph 69 of the report says explicitly:
Existing practice would continue in respect of bills taken in committee of the whole House.
That is an acknowledgement of the importance of Bills that are taken on the Floor of the House, which generally—at least, often—are constitutional measures.

Mr. Newton: I acknowledge the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes.
I recognise that the issue with which we are dealing is a controversial one, although, in the light of what has taken place in the last few minutes, it is hardly necessary to say so. Clearly, there has been growing support for a different approach to timetabling—scheduling, if that word is preferred—in recent years. Some might say—at least one hon. Member has implied this already—that such an approach could make things much easier for the Government. Whether or not that proves to be the case, there will certainly be some who see it as constituting good grounds for caution, as has been amply demonstrated in the past few minutes. However, it would certainly make things better for the House if that were what hon. Members wanted and if the House were prepared to make it work.
As the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said, in his memorandum to the Committee he expressed his personal support—I emphasise that it was personal support—for the automatic timetabling of all Government Bills. In the debate of 2 March, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who was a distinguished member of the Jopling Committee and whom I am glad to see in his place, was broadly supportive, but clearly he recognised the dilemma on which we have been touching during the last few minutes, while the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) was supportive with some reservations. The Liberal Democrats too, in their memorandum to the Committee, favoured the proposal. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said in the earlier debate, we must face up to this issue.
We have some reservations about the alternative mechanisms proposed in the report for deciding the timetable of a Bill, but if the general proposal for automatic timetabling were to find favour with the House, the details could be considered further, with a good deal of discussion through the usual channels, before substantive motions were tabled. Clearly this is a difficult and sensitive issue.

Mr. Stanley Orme: If there were to be timetabling of a kind acceptable to the Opposition of the day, it could be detrimental to the Government, as Standing Committees could then discuss issues which, because of the traps set by Ministers, would not be reached. I say so as one who has been on both sides of these arguments. If there were timetables, and if we were able to discuss and vote on the controversial issues, that would be a benefit, rather than a detriment, to the House.

Mr. Newton: The whole House will listen with respect to the views of the right hon. Gentleman, who has a great deal of experience, not least as a Minister piloting Bills through the House. Perhaps it is not proper for me to say so, but he may himself have employed some of the devices that he associates with current Ministers. In any case, he illustrates the fact that this is by no means a simple or clear-cut issue. There is a balance to be considered, and it is very important that we get the detail right—something that I do not suggest I can do in a sentence or two this afternoon.
I turn now to the other recommendations in the report, which can be conveniently grouped in four categories those dealing with the parliamentary week; those concerned with procedures on Bills; a group of three dealing with subordinate legislation; and a fourth group of a more miscellaneous character.
Taking the first group in the context that I have already emphasised—that is to say, a balanced package—I have no difficulty in expressing support for the principle of a 10 o'clock finish as the norm. I do, however, doubt that it would be right for this to be achieved by the rigidity of a formal resolution or Standing Order, and I must, in particular, make clear to the House our reservations about the Committee's specific recommendation that suspension of the 10 o'clock rule be restricted to primary legislation taken as first Order of the Day. That would leave the way open for that first business to be talked out until 10 pm and any other business on the Order Paper scheduled for, say, 7 pm, would fall. That would plainly be very difficult for the Government to accept.
If the House is to rise at 10 pm, it should normally be accepted that the business scheduled for the day, agreed through the usual channels and announced to the House, should be completed by 10 pm on that day. It follows that, in our view, the Government should retain the right to ask the House to continue after 10 pm with Government business entered into before 10 pm. Having said that, sense that the point to which the report attached most importance in this regard was to bring an end to the practice of scheduling completely new business to start after 10 pm. We can certainly accept that aim, when taken with the report's proposal for automatic referral of affirmative statutory instruments to a Standing Committee, which should in itself serve to make much of the business currently done after 10 pm unnecessary other than in exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The right hon. Gentleman just said that affirmative statutory instruments would be considered in a Standing Committee. At the moment, such Committees meet on Wednesday morning in the main, and the report also proposes that the House should sit on Wednesday mornings. Does that mean that those serving on Committees dealing with the merits of statutory instruments would be denied the opportunity to be in the Chamber?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman raises just the type of point that we should, sensibly, consider in the debate. Perhaps his point underlines my reasons for believing that a general debate in which such problems could be explored should take place before we sought to table substantive resolutions. The hon. Gentleman's point is an obvious one that should be considered carefully.
Thus, with what are quite limited provisos, we would be happy to see 10 pm become the regular finishing time for public business. Whether it worked out like that in practice is for the House to determine. However, with good sense and a spirit of co-operation on all sides, I see no reason why it should not.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Newton: I will give way, but, obviously, my speech will be rather extended.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not indicative that the proposals come from a Government in which almost uniquely in British political history, neither the Prime Minister nor many of his senior colleagues have ever been in opposition? That has not happened before. They do not know what it is like to be in opposition. I can see the attraction from the point of view of those on the Government Front Bench of streamlining things to make it easier, but if it were to happen that they had the duty of opposing and really meant what they said, rather than going through the motions and posturing, which is a fat lot of use to anyone, would they then take a similar attitude?
I beg the Leader of the House to understand that those of us who have been in opposition for a long time also have feelings about this. Those who have occupied the Government Benches for so long—uniquely in the case of the Prime Minister, who has never been in opposition—should understand precisely what an adversarial system is about.

Mr. Newton: As it happens, I have clear memories of my time in opposition between 1974 and 1979. It is because of my consciousness of the type of point that the hon. Gentleman has raised that I have gone to some length to emphasise in that part of my speech that I have so far been able to deliver that there is a balance to be struck, with consideration on both sides. I am not in any way dismissing, nor have I sought to do so far, the type of considerations that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
I can give general support to the proposal for Wednesday morning sittings, although, as the report acknowledges, the structure of those proposed sittings needs to be carefully considered. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has thrown in another fact that needs to be considered. The Committee recognised the need to avoid Divisions and for that reason, rightly in the Government's view, decided that private Members' Bills should not be taken on such mornings.
The Committee did, however, propose that opposed private business might be taken at a morning sitting, and while I understand the reasoning behind that I see it as presenting rather more difficulty. Opposed private business is by defintion liable to be controversial, with the prospect of Divisions. Although the Committee recognised this and suggested that Divisions could be deferred to a later hour, I doubt whether that would generally be thought to be very satisfactory, and it could undoubtedly be potentially disruptive of the main part of the parliamentary day. I think that we should be looking to establish a position in which business taken at morning sittings is self-contained.
In any event, following the recent changes in the arrangements for dealing with private Bills, the House may

feel that this is not the time to propose further changes to the Standing Orders relating to private business. The number of private Bills brought before Parliament is likely to decrease significantly following the recent reforms, and at the very least it would surely be wise to await experience of the new regime before considering whether any further step is needed.
The counterpart to the introduction of morning sittings on Wednesdays is the proposal that 10 Fridays in each session should be designated as non-sitting days. We are ready to accept that recommendation. We find it more difficult to endorse in the same way the other proposal with which it is associated, namely that on Thursdays before non-sitting Fridays the House should rise at 7 pm, which would bring us very close to a position in which for 10 weeks a year the House was reduced to a three-day week for the handling of Government business. Obviously, however, there would be scope, in discussions through the usual channels, to consider the business which might be taken on such Thursdays, with a view to minimising the demands made on Members. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Bolsover has already referred, from a sedentary position, to the difficulty of deciding, as the report suggests, what is non-contentious or noncontroversial. At least, that is what I took him to mean.
The second group of recommendations, which deals with the procedure on Bills—in particular, Ways and Means and money resolutions, and ten-minute Bills—is largely acceptable, subject to the detailed points I have already made about automatic timetabling of Government Bills and the handling of opposed private business.
The recommendations relating to subordinate legislation are generally sensible and right. In particular. we welcome automatic referral upstairs to statutory instruments. The only significant reservation that I must express in this connection relates to the proposal, relevant to what has happened in the past few minutes, that Front-Bench speeches should be formally limited to 20 minutes or 15 minutes in debates on statutory instruments and European Community documents. However desirable such economy may be—I have already made it clear that I am willing to endorse it on a "best endeavours" basis—the potential difficulties of a formal rule are obvious. They have become even more so in the past few minutes.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Newton: I wonder whether hon. Members would now let me get on.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just rose to prove the point—it is made.

Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend has suggested, according to the report, that statutory instruments should go automatically upstairs. Often, those statutory instruments are controversial and the House would prefer to debate them on the Floor. How, in my right hon. Friend's opinion, should they be dealt with?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend raises a point that needs to be considered as we study the details of the report. That was precisely the type of point that I hoped would be elicited as a concern among some Members during the debate. The purpose of the debate is to address such concern. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) should recall that I said that it would be difficult to accept the specific recommendations about a formal 20-minute limitation on Front-Bench speeches precisely because that would constitute a grave inhibition on the type of exchanges that have taken place in the past few minutes. If that is what the House wishes, I would certainly not wish to put a block on it.

Mr. Michael Jopling: May I refer my right hon. Friend to paragraph 74 of the report:
It will, of course, continue to be possible to debate the more important and controversial affirmative instruments … on the floor of the House.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clarification, but I believe that the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) raised, which he might seek to develop if he has the opportunity to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, relates to what mechanism should be used to determine what is or is not controversial and important. My hon. Friend is concerned about the problem of definition when determining what business should be taken in which way. We should not disguise the fact that there is scope for disagreement and difficulty, because different Members take different views about the importance and controversiality of particular proposals.
Of the other proposals in the report—those which I described earlier as miscellaneous—I judge that those of most interest to the House would be those relating to the notice and timing of recesses, and the making of business statements to embrace two weeks rather than one.
On the first of the issues, I need hardly say that I understand and sympathise with the wish for greater certainty and earlier notice of recesses, but it would be wrong for me to disguise from the House the fact that the setting of immutable dates many months in advance would give rise to problems similar to those I referred to earlier in relation to specific commitments to a 10 o'clock finish to Government business—that is to say, of strengthening too much the scope for mere obstruction of business. Dates that had to be changed could be the worst of all worlds for everyone.
I certainly can and will seek to build on the steps already taken by my predecessors in recent years to try to give the House an earlier and clearer indication of when it is intended that it should rise for the next recess, as was perhaps most clearly exemplified by what my immediate predecessor did when Easter fell late, to give an early indication that the recess would include the week preceding Easter.
I am of course conscious that the date for the summer recess is of particular concern, especially but by no means only to Members from Scottish constituencies with children at school, whose holidays fall earlier than those in England and Wales. I hope that what we have been able to do this year, in terms of both timing and announcement, may be taken as an earnest of good intentions to move as far as I can in the direction the House would wish.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Newton: In the light of the number of times that I have given way already, it would now be appropriate for me to seek to bring my speech to a conclusion.
Similarly, although I well understand the wish to see business statements covering a longer period ahead, I am also conscious that a situation in which business was announced on a basis which would inevitably be much more provisional that at present, with a correspondingly much greater risk that it would have to be changed, could prove even more inconvenient than the present convention. Of course, an overall package of reform may reduce the range of uncertainties and make it easier to plan over a longer period with reasonable certainty; but for the moment I think that I must confine myself to an understanding of "best endeavours", and in particular aim for rather more notice of what might be called "setpiece" occasions.
In seeking to set the scene for this debate today, I necessarily sounded some notes of caution, and not least thought it right to emphasise to the House, as I must again in concluding, the central importance of the balance that will have to be struck between the report's proposal on timetabling and many, if not all, of its other recommendations. But I hope that it is clear that I have done so in a constructive and positive spirit that, with co-operation on both sides of the House, can pave the way, in the wake of this debate, for important and worthwhile procedural reform in the interests of Members, the House as a whole and, above all, the essential democratic process which we are all here to serve.

Dr. John Cunningham: My view that Parliament needs reform is widely shared not only in the House but increasingly outside the House, too. It is in the interests of the reputation of the House of Commons that we should make a serious attempt at reform.
I submitted a memorandum of evidence to the Jopling Committee. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), on managing to secure a unanimous report. I shall not bore the House by reading out all my views but shall simply rehearse one or two to point out that the report falls far short of my views and recommendations to the Committee. I favoured morning sittings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays; the ending of business at 9 pm from Monday to Wednesday and at 7 pm on Thursdays; no sittings on Fridays; a fixed parliamentary year; and the timetabling of legislation. I made many other recommendations for change.
The House sits for more days, and more hours on more days, than almost any other western democratic legislature. However, there is no evidence that we are conspicuously more effective at checking the Executive, scrutinising public expenditure or stopping Government legislation going through. I can say that with feeling, having spent seven years as shadow Environment Secretary dealing with numerous large and controversial Bills.
In the 1988 parliamentary Session, for example, environmental legislation took up one third of the parliamentary work load in the House, and it was not much different in earlier years. Of the 1,783 hours and six minutes—for what they are worth—for which the House sat, 606 hours were spent discussing environment business and my hon. Friends and I dealt with virtually all that legislation.
Almost all the major Bills that one can recall were guillotined sooner or later. The housing finance Bill, the abolition of the Greater London Council and metropolitan counties, many other local government finance Bills, the poll tax Bill and water privatisation all inevitably ran into the guillotine procedure. That was not because hon. Members were filibustering—we were not. I gave up the idea of speaking for its own sake in this place long ago. I favour more effective scrutiny of the Executive, better-quality checks and balances, not simply of the quantity of time spent in this place, whether in the Chamber or in Committee.

Mr. Tim Devlin: My first year in the House was 1988, and I served, as the hon. Gentleman probably recalls, on the Standing Committee on the Local Government Finance Bill. We sat many a late night in the Committee Room for six or more weeks before a guillotine came down on that Bill. We then reached the stage when several hon. Members like myself, who had reservations about various parts of the Bill, were able to start debating many of the issues in later parts of the Bill. Would not it be much better to guillotine all Bills from the beginning so that hon. Members who support the Government would not have to sit silently listening to the first six or eight clauses being exhaustively debated by Opposition Members alone before they, too, can discuss the Bill?

Dr. Cunningham: I shall return to timetabling in a moment. First I wish to make two or three general points.
Many of my constituents and the people with whom I discuss the affairs in the Chamber agree that the antiquity of our proceedings and the inadequacy of the facilities to help us deal with those proceedings are simply bringing Parliament into disrepute. People do not regard this place as effective and it becomes less and less attractive to many people, particularly women, to want to try to operate under the existing rules. It has been my strongly held view for many years that we should do more to attract women into the House.
Improving our procedures can make us more effective watchdogs of the Executive, which is one of our principal reasons for being here, but also more effective in representing our constituencies and the individual constituents who come to us for redress. I make no apology for being in favour of reform.

Mr. Barnes: How can hon. Members act as watchdogs when we are about to go into recess for three months? Avenues of scrutiny and the pursuit of grievances on behalf of constituents will not be available to us. Instead of a three-month break, why do not we spread six or seven of those weeks throughout the year as "constituency weeks"? We would then not have an excessive gap when we cannot keep the Executive in check. The Prime Minister now has the presidency of the European Community for six months and we cannot ask simple questions about it for three months.

Dr. Cunningham: I say this with some deference to my hon. Friend, but if interventions last as long as that we shall all end up making very long speeches from the Dispatch Box.
I do not accept my hon. Friend's basic premise. I do not accept that the work that I do as a Member of Parliament

stops because the House of Commons is not sitting. I do not accept for a moment that, if I am not present in the Chamber, I cannot write a letter, demand a meeting with a Minister or take a deputation to see people in Whitehall.
I shall say this as humbly as I can. I remember when Labour was in government—my memory is as good as that—and I had the privilege of serving as a Minister. It is often far more difficult for a Minister to deal with well-researched, well-informed, well-constructed letters from parliamentary colleagues than it is for him to deal with questions at the Dispatch Box. I do not accept that I can act effectively on behalf of my constituents only if the House is in session.
Furthermore, I do not accept that our proceedings are effective only if they take place in the Chamber. That is why I am in favour of more business being dealt with in Committee. The lessons learned from the development of Select Committee work over the past few years have led to an increase in the effective scrutiny of Government Departments, public expenditure and Ministers' conduct of business through Select Committee procedures.
When I became a Member of Parliament in 1970, I volunteered to be a Select Committee member. Some of my colleagues thought that rather odd, if not foolhardy; but I served on a Select Committee for six years. I enjoyed it, and I learnt a great deal about the behaviour of Ministers and civil servants in Whitehall and the tricks that they play. That stood me in great stead. I believe that the House's Select Committee work has been one of its successes. At the time, many people opposed it on the ground that it would diminish the effectiveness of Parliament and take too much important business away from the Floor of the House, but I do not believe that that has happened.
We shall study with care what the Leader of the House has said. He has read a good deal into the record about the Government's attitude to the proposed changes. I am speaking for myself, but I hope that it will be possible for us to agree a way forward. I accept the argument of Committee members, and others on both sides of the House, that unless there is a broad consensus in favour of change, no change will come about. It was, after all, Conservative Back Benchers who wrecked the Crossman changes which were introduced in the 1960s.

Mr. Dalyell: I was the late Dick Crossman's parliamentary private secretary at the time, and I recall that that was done not so much by Conservative Back Benchers as by his Cabinet colleagues. That is another story, but I know quite a lot about it. My hon. Friend need go no further than Lord Callaghan for a explanation: he knows that what I have said is true.
Can my hon. Friend name a single crunch issue in regard to which a Select Committee has been really effective? What happened in the Westland case? At the end of the day, hon. Members gave in to Leon Brittan. Ultimately, party always comes before Government. Arrangements were altered when a guillotine could not be secured on the Floor of the House, and certain Bills were affected, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will recall—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions have become progressively longer. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is now becoming a speech.

Dr. Cunningham: As I remember, at the end of the Westland affair. Leon Brittan resigned. My hon. Friend's claim that the inquiry had no effect, or that its only consequence was that hon. Members gave in to the Minister, does not accord with historical facts. I believe that two Cabinet Ministers bit the dust. I do not attribute all that to the work of the Select Committee, but to say that nothing happened is to play fast and loose with the facts.
Let me deal in more detail with the issue of timetabling. I am clear in my own mind, on the basis of my own experience, that if we had agreed timetables, scrutiny of the legislation would have been at least as effective. As a result of an enforced guillotine, reams of Bills were never discussed in Committee by either side. That is the truth, and everyone knows it. I do not accept that timetables should be enforced by the Executive; there must be some agreement—on a Committee-by-Committee basis, through the establishment of an independent Committee or through the extension of an existing Committee's remit.
I want timetabling to include special evidence-taking sessions, so that Committees can call expert witnesses—that is already within the Standing Orders—before the application of a timetable. All that must be the subject of serious and careful negotiation. My hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip does not share my views; nor, for all I know, do most of his colleagues in the Whips' Office. However, I would join my hon. Friends in the Division Lobby to oppose an enforced timetable. There must be fairness between Government and Opposition.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that the efficacy of Opposition scrutiny is part of the essence of parliamentary life. But how can he reconcile what he has said about the Standing Order arrangement—which would give the majority vote on Committees and timetabling to the Government—with what happens to some Bills? There is an arrangement between the usual channels, and a conversational agreement between hon. Members. Surely the great thing about the Standing Order arrangement is that the initiative is largely with the Opposition in Committees; the Government must produce a response. Surely, giving Governments power to provide an arrangement would diminish the power of the Opposition.

Dr. Cunningham: I do not agree. In my experience the initiative was not with the Opposition. Most Secretaries of State—or more commonly, their Ministers—came to Committee stages with a premeditated plan for a guillotine after a certain number of hours of discussion. They did not much care what took up those hours; they simply wanted them to accumulate. We all know that that is the truth. There is not really any argument about it. I have been here 22 years, which is far too long for me to pretend that the system worked in any other way. I do not see why we should disguise the truth from ourselves when we are talking about trying to make our proceedings more effective.
If we are to improve our scrutiny and effectiveness, and if we are to allow ourselves time for further research and better briefing, we need to do something about the hours the House sits. Let me give an example that highlights the weakness of our proceedings. Outside bodies such as pressure groups usually know far more about impending legislation than Opposition Members do. That is partly

because Members of Parliament have not sufficient time and/or resources to ensure that they are thoroughly briefed and prepared. For that reason also, I believe that our procedures are in need of change.
The Leader of the House said that he hoped for a quiet afternoon. I never thought that likely; it was a bit of wishful thinking by the right hon. Gentleman. It is clear from our proceedings so far—and we have barely started—that these modest proposals will generate great heat—perhaps more heat than light, I regret to say. In general I endorse the Committee's approach, although I would not agree with every dot and comma. It is good that the Leader of the House mentioned specific proposals for change. They will have to be considered in greater detail than this afternoon allows—but I am certain about one thing: I am on the side of the reformers.

Mr. Michael Jopling: When we debated the report on 2 March I spoke for 18 minutes and I shall try to be reasonably brief today. I must begin this rerun debate by expressing my gratitude to the Committee members who worked so hard in the autumn and winter of last year and reported to the House earlier this year.
I remind the House that those who served on the Committee were distinguished: the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, the chairman of the 1922 Committee, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee and the former Liberal Chief Whip. Our body of members was thus representative of those in positions of influence, especially on the Back Benches. I was particularly pleased that we produced a unanimous report.
I should like to repeat some of the important remarks of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), which also appear in the report. This House sits for more days and more hours than any other Parliament in the larger democracies. Our average finishing time in recent years has been almost precisely midnight. It is therefore clear to me, as it was to the Committee, that something needs to be done, because the present state of affairs is not satisfactory.
This debate is different from the March debate, because Front-Bench spokesmen on both sides have been much more forthcoming about the Committee's report. I am grateful to them for their general support this afternoon.
To judge from the speech by the Leader of the House, I would estimate that the Government have endorsed about 80 per cent. of the Committee's recommendations. The hon. Member for Copeland was good enough to say that he supported the report in general. It would be absurd to put a figure on his endorsement because, understandably, he did not go into detail. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Government for their large measure of acceptance of our recommendations.
I draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 9 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). It has attracted just short of 220 signatures—about a third of the membership of the House. It, too, endorses the Select Committee's report. A breakdown of that endorsement which the Library gave me last week showed 85 Government supporters and 110 Labour party supporters. I therefore see a great deal of support in the House for our report.
I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House told us that the Government will accept many points in the report, but I want to concentrate on the recommendations about which some doubt has been expressed.
My right hon. Friend referred to the difficulties of planning business if a set of time-buffers to Government or any other business is erected. I know that from experience. If we decide to bring business to a close at 10 pm precisely or to get up for the summer recess on 16 July, that offers the Opposition an irresistible temptation to drive the Government into the buffers to ensure that there is unfinished business when the buffers are reached. We all know that that is one of the Opposition's techniques; hence one of the techniques of the Government is not to erect the sort of buffers that provide such an irresistible temptation.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They also appear to offer an irresistible temptation to their Lordships' House.

Mr. Jopling: Over the past year I have had enough problems with the procedures of this House not to get involved in all that.
Clearly, we want these changes. I agreed with my right hon. Friend that we do not want orders put on at 10 pm following a Second reading debate or an Opposition day—that represents totally new business beginning at 10 o'clock. We want that stopped as soon as possible.
Provided all Bills are timetabled sensibly, in line with the Committee's report, it should not often be necessary to continue Report stages on the Floor of the House after 10 pm. That may have to happen sometimes, but, with a sensible timetable system, it should usually be possible to bring a Report stage to a conclusion at or around 10 pm, obviating the need to go on through all or part of the night.
I understand the reluctance of the Government to agree never to sit beyond 10 o'clock, but we want from the Government statements of good will and of honest best endeavours—and we want the same from the Opposition and Back Benchers. Everyone is responsible for seeing that the general intentions of the House in this respect are abided by.

Mr. Spearing: I shall not deal with timetabling, although I take a view different from that of the right hon. Gentleman and of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—it is a Front Bencher against Back Bencher issue.
Did the Committee consider the simple device of the recommittal of Bills, whether guillotined or not, so that commitments and discussions that take place on the record but which are not necessarily a cause of division can take place on a recommitted Bill, not on the subsequent Report stage—which should nevertheless not be prejudiced?

Mr. Jopling: As I recall, the Committee did not spend much time on that, for the simple reason that none of its members was particularly attracted to that argument.

Mr. Dalyell: I marvel at what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. What was he doing about the 10 o'clock rule when he was Opposition Chief Whip? What was he doing to bleary-eyed Labour Ministers who were trying to get Government business through? It is all rather different,

depending on whether one is in government or in opposition. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman believed any of this when he was Opposition Chief Whip.

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman has a particularly bad memory; I never was Opposition Chief Whip or even Opposition Deputy Chief Whip. For a short time I was the Opposition pairing Whip—a different matter altogether.

Mr. Michael Spicer: What does my right hon. Friend say about the constitutional point that a strong Executive can control the legislature? The only real power of the legislature is on the timing of legislation and debate. The unpredictability of that timing is what gives Back Benchers and Parliament real power over the Executive.

Mr. Jopling: I shall deal precisely with that matter when I reach the part of my speech which deals with timetabling.
The Committee proposes 10 free Fridays. Many Members, and especially those whose constituencies are a long way from London, wanted clear and certain Fridays to enable them to make firm engagements in the constituencies weeks or months ahead without the risk of having to tell their constituents that they had to be in the House. Members who were keen to have free Fridays were also keen to have the freedom to return to their distant constituencies on Thursday evenings so that they had a clear start on Frieday morning.

Mr. Cryer: Will the 10 Fridays to be abolished be those devoted to Government business or private Members' business? With a few exceptions for highly controversial private Members' Bills, for which many people outside want to be sure that we are in the House, by and large most hon. Members can decide whether to be here on a Friday.

Mr. Jopling: The Committee proposes that the Wednesday morning sittings for private Members' business would almost exactly replace private Members' time on Fridays. Therefore, the 10 Fridays would come almost entirely out of Government time. I shall shortly turn to the issue of balance. I accept that a business statement on Thursday and perhaps another important statement would make it difficult to finish by 7 o'clock on Thursdays preceding non-sitting Fridays. There should be discussions on that. The Committee and many hon. Members found such moves desirable and worth while.
There is a proposal for a weekly statement giving details of business for two weeks ahead. I am glad to see that the Government Chief Whip is in his place. I entirely understand the difficulties of presenting such a business statement. I know from experience how often the business changes on Tuesday or Wednesday before an announcement on Thursday. I also know that that often happens at the request of the Opposition. That is why the Committee suggested that it should be done as an experiment to see how it works. The House may find that it does not work because of business announced for the second week having to be changed. However, I ask the Leader of the House to look at the matter again because, although it may not work, we should at least try it.
I shall now deal with timetabling. The Committee spent a great deal of time agonising over a package of proposals that would maintain the crucial balance between preserving the Government's right to get their business and giving the Opposition ample opportunity to oppose. Another consideration was the preservation of the rights


of private Members. The transfer of private Members' business to Wednesday mornings leaves it almost exactly intact but spread much more evenly over the parliamentary year.
The Committee believed that it had created a balanced package preserving those priorities. It would be unfair to one side or the other for the House to start to unpick that package by taking bits out and putting bits in. The Government cannot refuse to accept shorter hours and expect the package to remain fair. It would be unfair to the Opposition if the Government said that they would not accept a 10 o'clock finish as a general rule or 10 fewer Fridays. Conversely, it would be unfair to the Government if the Opposition refused to accept timetabling. The Committee looked carefully at the issue of balance and it would be unreasonable to remove bricks from the structure.

Sir Dudley Smith: As a former Chief Whip, does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Government have a workable majority and not too many rebels, they will always get their business through? It is important to have a structured debate on all subjects giving ample time to the Opposition and to Government Back Benchers who are nowadays often inhibited because of time limitations.

Mr. Jopling: I endorse what my hon. Friend says and would have liked time to include the matter in my speech.
There is much work to be done in the recess. The usual channels have a great deal to agree if we are to find methods of changing the rules and introduce the carefully worked out and balanced package in the autumn. I wish them good fortune in their work. If there is the same good will between the usual channels that we had in our Committee, they will succeed—to the benefit of the House as a whole.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I shall be brief, as I spoke in the last debate on the report. I am disappointed that this is another open debate. I had hoped that we would be dealing with Government proposals which could be examined and amended so that we could make real progress in the interests of the House.
The past three months have provided ample evidence that the House needs to reform its procedures. There has been little business, but the House has continued to ramble on and sit for long hours when business has not merited it. As a result, the reputation of Parliament has suffered. Discussions this weekend about the manner in which the Whips have handled issues, the make-up of the Select Committees and the discussions surrounding the debate have done little to serve the interests of democratic accuntability and the progress of real democracy.
I confess that I am not greatly enamoured of procedural debates. I am far more interested in debating issues and getting things done. However, I agreed to serve on the Committee because I believe that democracy is becoming almost a sham, and that people outside have less and less faith in the manner in which we conduct our proceedings. We have to take account of that and do something about it.
Changing and reforming the manner in which the Chamber operates will not make life less easy for the Opposition or make the Opposition more effective. I

accept that I have been a Member of Parliament only since 1987, but during that time I have disliked the way in which the Government have used the guillotine. Their argument about the Opposition's use of time is irrelevant, because they have not been able to use time themselves. Neither have they discovered an alternative method of effective opposition, which is what is needed. I want to ensure that we have effective control of the Executive. In the past five years, neither Government nor Opposition Back Benchers have found an effective way to do that. Some of the policies which have resulted from that have not been in the interests of democracy. The poll tax is but one instance of that.
I shall also say something about the job of a Member of Parliament and why I do not accept that the way in which Fridays are organised means that one can make up one's own mind what one does on a Friday. Private Members' business is important, but I am forced by the House to make the decision that on a Friday I have to be in my constituency as much as possible. That is because I employ staff in the constituency and I cannot meet them unless I am there on a Friday. I also wish to visit establishments in the constituency which I can visit only on a Friday. That means that I cannot choose to be here to discuss the issues which are debated on a Friday.
I invite hon. Members to consider the pattern of participation in debates on Fridays. It is virtually exclusively the province of southern Members of Parliament and inevitably, therefore, of Tory Members. That is an abdication of the responsibility of democracy.

Mr. Dalyell: May I put a contrary point of view to my hon. Friend? She can go to Durham and do what is necessary in her constituency on a Friday but there are occasions when Scots and others are interested in a particular subject such as toxic waste, Rio or recycling, and have no other opportunity—at least those of us on the Back Benches—

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Those debates will he held in the mornings.

Mr. Dalyell: I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the late Dick Crossman when he introduced morning sittings and—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it is not fair to the hon. Member who has the Floor when interventions become speeches, as I have said already this afternoon.

Ms. Armstrong: That is why I say that Fridays must be organised. I, too, am interested in recycling and toxic waste, but I am forced by the House to decide either to fulfil my commitments to my constituency or to take part in the debates. We should organise business so that such choice is not laid upon me. I want both to be involved in those debates and to be able to fulfil my commitments to my constituency.
I accept that things have changed, but constituents do not understand when we are not regularly in the constituency because they know that we can travel easily. We should organise our business here so that private Members' motions and Bills can be debated, but we should also ensure that that takes place in a system which recognises that a Member of Parliament's job is partly in Westminster and partly in their constituency. Furthermore, the House should be so organised that we


can make sure that Members of Parliament are much more likely to be listening to and among their constituents in normal times, with the result that we are much more reflective of their aims, aspirations and concerns. The more Members of Parliament are able to become normal—I doubt that we shall ever become totally normal—and the more that we are able to plan family and parliamentary life, the bettter we shall be in increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of democracy.
It is because we are so unrepresentative—

Mr. Dalyell: Crap.

Ms. Armstrong: —that we do not attract more women Members and more Members from ethnic minorities. This will never be a nine-to-five job, but we must ensure that Members of Parliament can both have a family and be here, because that will encourage those people to come here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) uses words that I would not use. If he looks at the women Members of Parliament representing northern and Scottish constituencies, he will see that the majority have no children. That means that we have accepted that doing this job means that we cannot do the job of being a proper parent. That decision does not have to be made by male Members of Parliament or by the partners of lady Members of Parliament. If the House is interested in democratic accountability, we need to have a much more representative and effective membership. I want our debates to be listened to with more care and consideration because people outside see us as being serious about the process of democracy and the issues that we are debating.

Sir Peter Emery: As the debate proceeds, two features stand out which I have learnt from 32 years in the House and nine years as Chairman of the Procedure Committee—longer, incidentally than any other Chairman this century. First, reform in this House proceeds exceeding slow. It makes a snail look like Nigel Mansell. Secondly, and of perhaps even greater importance, is the fact that the voices and actions of a few Members of Parliament have all too often frustrated reforms. Governments have seemed unwilling to act on procedural matters unless they could obtain almost 100 per cent.—or perhaps even 101 per cent.—acceptance of any changes that they wanted. I hope that that will not happen today.
I urge, I plead, I even demand, that the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister—both of whom I believe to be in favour of trying to streamline the way in which the House deals with public and private business—should get on with reform. That reform seems to receive approval of anyone to whom a Member of Parliament talks outside the Chamber. If Members talk to those who sign resolutions or to those who do the real work in the House, they will find that, with few exceptions, those people are in favour of the recommendations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling).
Two years ago, during the summer of 1990, I told the then Leader of the Hosue—my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), now Secretary of State for Transport—that in the coming

Session, in the autumn, the Procedure Committee was likely once more to investigate fully the sitting hours of the House and of its Committees. It was then put to me in the autumn of 1990 that the Government might wish to move on these matters themselves. As there was other work for the Procedure Committee to do, we pressed on with that.
Before Christmas 1990, and again in the early spring of 1991, I pressed the then Leader of the House because I wished to know what the Government intended to do. I reported the conversations to the members of the Procedure Committee and then reported to my right hon. Friend the then Leader of the House that I did not believe that they would brook any further delay and that we, the members of the Committee, would proceed unless the Government told us what they intended to do. This they then proceeeded to do, and in May 1991 they announced the membership of the Jopling Committee.
The Procedure Committee accepted the Government's position. It did so because the new Committee was to be established for a specific purpose and was composed of senior and very experienced Members. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said, the new Committee proceeded with considerable speed. The objective was to produce a report which could be considered—we hoped that it could even be acted upon—before the general election. The first debate took place in March, and this debate takes place four months into the new Parliament. It is a debate on the Adjournment of the House, so there are no specific motions before us. I know that many Members expected the Government to take the necessary action to which the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) referred, which could be agreed by most hon. Members. If the relevant decisions were taken, we could start with the new procedures after we return from the summer recess.
The further delay means that we shall have to have a further debate and the Government will have to table the necessary motions. Is the House so decrepit that we have to lumber along like some tired old tyrannosaurus, hardly able to move forwards? The delay, however, goes much further than that. Exactly half the recommendations of the Jopling Committee are resubmissions or approvals of recommendations made by the Procedure Committee in reports produced in 1985, 1987 and 1989. The longer we wait, the longer it will be before anything concrete is done, and the more we are limited to talk, the greater the likelihood that nothing worth while will be obtained.
Two items in the Jopling report have already been referred for further consideration. I may sound unduly pessimistic, but experience has told me that all too frequently that reform becomes bogged down in inaction. That is not acceptable to the House now.
There are three matters which need to be emphasised, or even re-emphasised. With the normal time scale—that is, not when an early election has been called—over the past 25 years no piece of legislation announced by a Government in a Queen's Speech has failed to take its place on the statute book during the then current Session.

Mr. Don Dixon: Only the Maastricht Bill.

Sir Peter Emery: I was talking about the past. I am not looking into the future, and I do not think that I can be asked to do so.
As I have said, no piece of legislation has been delayed because of the major weapon, as Oppositions believe it to


be, of time. The effectiveness of that so-called weapon has been exaggerated to a considerable extent, and I do not speak as someone who has not sat on the Opposition Benches; indeed, a third of my time in the House has been in Opposition.
I can think back, all too clearly perhaps, to the days when the then Conservative Opposition were discussing the legislation which followed "In Place of Strife". We sat in Committee for hour after hour. We began our afternoon deliberations at 4.30 pm, and we would break at midnight. We then continued until about 7 am. At midnight, a group of Conservative Members used to return to my flat, where we would have a quick beer and a shower. We would change our shirts and suits and then return to the Committee Room. We hoped thoroughly to annoy the Government by appearing to be in pristine condition and ready to go on for ever.
Did that really achieve anything? Did that really annoy the then Government so much that they were minded to open up "In Place of Strife"? The answer is that it did not. The real difficulty for the Labour Government was that the then Secretary of State, now Lady Castle, lost the confidence of her Cabinet colleagues. We claimed a victory, but that loss of confidence did not result from anything that the Conservative Opposition had done. If we are honest, we know that that is so. Let us therefore reject the concept that time in the hands of an Opposition has a marvellous effect in altering what Governments do. That is pure "Alice in Wonderland" thinking. In other words, it is not realistic.

Mr. Dalyell: There is another view. The arguments advanced by the Conservative Opposition against "In Place of Strife" created a situation in which James Callaghan could act as he did. Indirectly—I did not welcome this—that was a major factor in the lack of success of the Labour Government and ultimately in bringing them down.

Sir Peter Emery: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he gives the then Opposition much more credit than any of us who considered the "In Place of Strife" legislation in Committee ever believed should be accorded to us. We know that what he suggested was not the case.
Secondly, there is the amendment that I moved in Committee on 18 February. The Committee seemed to be setting out to fit the same amount of work into a different shaped bottle. My amendment reads:
Up to this point in our enquiry we have rearranged the times of sittings of the House as nearly as possible to retain the same number of working hours spent by Members at Westminster. We have devised methods that really do no more than rearrange the existing working hours of the House into a different working pattern, with little overall loss of parliamentary time. However, if we are to make any major alteration or a substantial change to the demands of Parliament itself, one needs to consider the work pattern of today's Members.
The Committee has accepted that the House sits longer than any other legislature and, in addition, the constituency demands on the Member have become considerable, growing beyond all previous comparisons. Therefore, a reduction in actual sitting time in Parliament, so that a Member may be more in his constituency, must not be interpreted as a decrease in the workload of the Member of Parliament. It is rather an acceptance of present day demands of the electorate to have the MP in his constituency able to consult more and more with constituents and so reflect the demands of a modern democracy.

The Committee did not have the time or the ability to consider that proposition if it was to report within the time scale of the previous Parliament. I believe, however, that the House will have to return to these issues. The demands on Members to be in their constituencies, to be seen in them and to be seen working within them, are so different now from 1959 or 1970. Demands have changed. Perhaps pavement politics has brought this about, but it is something that the House must consider.
The Committee's terms of reference precluded our considering the actual size of the membership of the House. Having 651 Members of Parliament makes us the second largest democratic national parliamentary assembly in the world—second only because Germany has brought together the east and west German Parliaments, but it is now taking steps to reduce its size. This House is too large, and there are too many Members of Parliament—[Interruption.] People say that it is impossible for the work load—[Interruption.] It is worth noting—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Too many seated interventions make it difficult for me to hear the Member who has the Floor. If we intend to make reforms, let us start with a little courtesy.

Sir Peter Emery: In talking about the work load of a Member of Parliament, it is interesting to consider the work loads of the leaders of the two main parties. The Leader of the Opposition has an electorate of 55,000; my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has 93,000. If we took my right hon. Friend's electorate as the average, we could reduce the membership of the House by almost 200. Many of our problems would then disappear—[Interruption.] It could be done quite easily if both sides announced that it was to happen in 10 years. Natural wastage and those Members coming up to retirement would then work their way through the system. As I have said many times, it is difficult for a chicken to vote for chicken pie, but if we want major reforms we must consider that proposal.
I wish to discuss the recommendations as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) has dealt with them seriatim. I wish to consider them as a package because there are balances and counter-balances within that package. There arc ways in which the Opposition would benefit. When there is timetabling, the Opposition can call the tune on what is debated—[Interruption.] Perhaps I may finish my statement. As hon. Members who have served on special Committees know, when a timetable motion has been passed we consider how the time should be allocated. The Minister does not mind how it is allocated; it is the Opposition who decide how the time will be spent. The Opposition are given the power to decide what they want to debate.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I have served on a large number of Committees, but I cannot think of one in which the Opposition have not worked out, right from the start, how they want to allocate the time. That allocation may be disrupted as the Bill proceeds, because of developments and changes, but it would be an irresponsible Opposition who did not allocate time, at least in their mind, as the Bill proceeded. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that that right to allocate time should be taken away from the Opposition and given to the Government.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman has not listened to what I have said. He pays no attention to facts. It is true that when both sides go into Committee somebody—who is not too far away from the Chamber at this moment—has already decided when he needs the Bill out of Committee so that it can go to the other place. Every Minister, whichever party is in government, knows that. Provided that the Bill meets that time scale, the whole thing proceeds normally. If that does not happen, after a certain number of days of debate the Government introduce a timetable motion. It would be better if that timetable were imposed at the start of the proceedings, with the Opposition having a say from the start. It should not be left to the Government—

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I should like to confirm something that the hon. Gentleman said, but in the context of the poll tax Bill. We forced the guillotine on that because the Government wanted an early final day. At home one Sunday afternoon I wrote a timetable motion for the five-day Report stage, which was accepted without quibble by the Minister in charge once the guillotine had been accepted. The opposition had total control over what happened on Report, right down to the last hour. We were satisfied with that, but we were dissatisfied with the early introduction of a guillotine motion.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman makes my case for me. That is why there are checks and balances in the packages of recommendations. They arc necessary if we are to go ahead with reforms which make sense both from the Opposition and for the Government. I do not want the Opposition to be weakened—I have been in opposition, and I or my successor is likely to be there again. I am not thinking solely of the power of Government. No one who served with me on the Procedure Committee could level that accusation at me; I have always wanted to ensure power for the minorities and for the Opposition.
Finally, I want to ask for three things. First, now that the debate is virtually over, the Procedure Committee should be reappointed because there is already a queue of subjects with which it needs to deal. I hope that we can get on with that.
Secondly, the departmental Select Committees need to be established. That they have not been established already, despite the recommendation of the Procedure Committee, is a scandal. We have wasted public money. Thank goodness, we should be able to deal with the matter tonight so that those Committees can start their work and operate properly when we return from the recess.
Thirdly, will the Government give me a guarantee that the recommedations of the Jopling Committee will be voted on by the House within 30 days of its return in the autumn? If those three matters can be dealt with, today's debate will have been worth while.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have two brief comments on the speech of the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) before dealing with the matter in general. Although some in the House have seen life only from the Government's perspective, and others, like the hon. Gentleman, have seen it from the perspective of both Government and Opposition, some whole parties have seen it only from opposition—

Mr. Michael Brown: And always will.

Mr. Hughes: It is certainly not as it always will be, as it is not as it always has been in the past. Therefore, our comments both today and in evidence, written and oral, come from the perspective of opposition, but do not preclude the idea of them being implemented when we share in or are the Government.
The hon. Member for Honiton painted a wonderful picture of how much more acceptable life would be if there were fewer Members of Parliament. He compared the electorates of the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. The logical conclusion of his suggestion that life becomes much easier the larger the electorate is that, with one person representing everybody, there would be no need for debate—[Interruption.] I know that he did not quite suggest that, but some of us believe that we already have enough difficulty adequately representing 80,000 people. Any more than that, especially in urban areas with great social problems, would make life very difficult.
The debate has continued over a long period in different guises, with contributions from our former Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and our previous Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). Although all three of us have held a Whip's position—I am currently deputy Chief Whip—I would not want my remarks to be perceived as a Whip's view of life. We try to reflect the views of our colleagues as a whole.
I reiterate the point made in the introduction to the report, which we generally welcome, and I will amplify it in one respect. It is true that we sit for longer than any other Parliament in a comparable democracy—by a long way. We seek to do an enormous amount of work, yet, as others have said, we do not feel that we accomplish it adequately. When studying other Parliaments in democracies during their sitting periods, I have found it interesting that they are generally far fuller than ours is. Members of Parliament elsewhere do not have as many competing demands, so other Parliaments are able to devote themselves more substantially to the significant business of the moment.
Although I would put it differently, I do not dissent from what the Committee identifies as the three principles, which are set out in paragraph 7. First, we have a legislative duty to control and scrutinise the Executive. We have to hold the Executive to account and scrutinise legislation, which is mainly Executive legislation, but also comes from other quarters. Secondly, we have to allow Back-Bench Members to represent interests of concern to them. Thirdly—I make the point rather more widely than the Committee did—we have to allow all parties to put their case as part of the national forum of debate, with the assumption that the Government will get their way in the end. The Committee makes the point about the parties putting their case and also that, at the end of the day, the Government must get their way.
As we made clear in our evidence, we believe that we shall never adequately answer the questions that the report seeks to address—this is no disrespect to the work well done by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and his colleagues—until there is substantial devolution of power and responsibility to the regions and countries of the United Kingdom.
The S word at the moment is subsidiarity. Unless there is subsidiarity in this country as well as in this continent, we shall not carry out our functions adequately. People ask me, "What were you doing last Wednesday night or last Thursday night?" The answer may be that we were debating Northern Ireland legislation often of quite significant insularity to that part of the United Kingdom. We may have been debating Scottish legislation in a debate in which only Scottish Members took part because the subject was relevant only to Scottish Members who were the only people with knowledge of it. We may have been debating Welsh legislation.
Unless we come to the conclusion that it is better that such matters are dealt with in Northern Ireland, in Scotland, in Wales or in the regions of England, we shall not be able to shed that work which we try to do along with everything else.
We try to deal with the whole of the international agenda and with the whole of the United Kingdom agenda. We try to deal with the national agendas of Ireland, Wales and Scotland, with the regional agenda and with the local agenda. That is an impossible collection of work. Just as work will gradually go up to the European level and to the European Parliament, so work must gradually go down to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. We could then cope with the work load and we should all feel much happier as a result.

Mr. John Gorst: I do not want wholly to destroy the hon. Gentleman's argument, because I agree with a great deal of it. However, is it not possible that if, rather than devolving government as he suggests, Governments did less, there would be less for us to talk about? The argument for devolution does not stand on its own.

Mr. Hughes: They are separate arguments; I understand that. My late colleague David Penhaligon, when he used to take tours round the House, went into the Lobby, where there are two volumes of the statutes currently in force. One runs from 1265 to 1956 and the other volume, of similar size, runs from 1956 to 1986, the year he died.
We legislate an enormous amount, although that is not always the fault of Government. Many of us put pressure on Government to legislate, and the pressure comes not only from non-Conservative parties, but from Conservative Members. With the best of intentions, any Government, no matter how thin a programme they have, end up legislating far more; I fear that that is the nature of society. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, if we thought twice and found other ways in which to deal with problems, it would be better and we could reduce our load in that way. However, that does not detract from my more fundamental constitutional point about it being a better system to decide matters at the appropriate level.
The Leader of the House divided the 26 recommendations into five categories. Fifteen concern our sittings and three concern secondary legislation. A few are about the parliamentary year, and there is a pair of proposals about the timetabling of speeches and about the timetabling of legislation. There are three proposals at the end about various separate and relatively ancillary matters.
My colleagues and I welcome the report generally. We have given our evidence and I do not intend to rehearse what we have said. We would have gone further on certain

points; we would not have gone less far on any point. It takes a long time to get movement in the House, but implementing the report would be a step in the right direction. I agree with the hon. Member for Honiton and with the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that the mood of the country is that we should move in that direction. People do not understand why we are left in a time warp.
There is not yet a consensus, although there is a clear better view on the two controversial issues of sittings and of timetabling. I and my colleagues agree with the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) on sittings. The competing demands on Members of Parliament are such that, especially for those representing far-flung parts of the United Kingdom, it is not possible to do the job properly if, on a Friday or a Monday, one is obliged to be in two places at the same time. There may be equally good reasons for a Member to be here and to be in his constituency.
We cannot do everything during the summer or Christmas holidays, we cannot visit everybody, many places are not open on Saturdays and Sundays, and we have constituency obligations. To move to fewer Friday sittings while ensuring that the balance of the week combines some morning sittings with some later sittings until 10 pm seems about right.
I do not agree that the principal reason for continuing to sit from lunchtime until the evening on most days is the jobs and convenience of people in the City or in the law courts. The House will make a decision on the matter excluding the interests of those Members, although there are some interests that militate for such hours.
In view of the time taken in opening our post, dealing with our correspondence and serving on Committees, we must have some time mid-week when we are not sitting in the Chamber. The balance is to sit on a Wednesday morning to deal with less controversial business and to finish generally at the sensible hour of 10 pm.
If people are going far away, they need to get away on a Thursday night. We must allow some people, especially London Members who have obligations, the opportunity to do other things in the evenings. The balance is more or less right. Let us try the proposals and then review them if they are gradually found to be unsatisfactory. We are not writing the proposals in stone for all time.

Mr. Rooker: What are the special obligations for London Members in the evening which bypass the rest of us?

Mr. Hughes: I was making the point that one of the many factors that the report seeks to balance is the fact that different Members in different parts of the country have different time obligations and constraints. I cited the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Durham, North-West, who said that she needs to be back in her constituency on Fridays.
There are arguments for keeping some parts of the week free of sittings so that we can perform different constituency obligations. We must arrange our hours differently. I am not asking for special considerations for London Members: I am saying simply that there are many different considerations which mean that we cannot satisfy everyone's best interests by any proposals.
The other controversial matter is timetabling. It is important that the report does not intend timetabling for


Bills whose further stages will be taken on the Floor of the House. It is important that constitutional matters are not timetabled and are taken here. We should all be aware that such legislation is excluded from the proposals.
I have not been a Member of this place for as long as some: I have been here for nearly 10 years. However, I believe that, over that time, the Opposition have never gained from trying to trip up the Government in respect of their timetabling. We may prolong a sitting, keep people up all night or keep debates running, but at the end of the day, the Government get their legislation. They normally do that with a guillotine, which means that there is no debate on the later swathes of that legislation.
When the Government have been tripped up over the past few years, it has happened because the view across the Floor of the House has provided a majority against the legislation. That is not a matter of procedure; it is a matter of substance. That happened with Sunday trading. The poll tax came close, and it happened with dog registration. It has occurred with big issues and little issues. In respect of timetabling, it is not that the Government failed to win the tactical, internal procedural battle: instead, they failed to win the battle on the merits of the issue.

Mr. Michael Spicer: It is clearly a matter of fact and part of our constitution that the Government get their business. If they do not, there is a confidence vote and if they lose that, the Government must go to the country. The issue is whether, by having some unpredictability in our timetable or potential rows between the Opposition or Back Benchers and the Government, the Government must then pause for thought and modify their position.
I have been here for 20 years, and I believe that Governments do modify their position. When I was in government, one worked out in advance what issues might cause rows and where one might have to modify the issue, but without giving up one's basic principles. However, the fact that it is not completely predictable that the Government will get their legislation is of some importance.

Mr. Hughes: I understand that, and that is the balance that we must weigh. Is there an overriding advantage in giving Opposition Members and parties that opportunity, or are there more advantages the other way? We believe that, although there are sometimes advantages, by the end of the parliamentary year the Government have got their way on everything, although there may be a little internal manoeuvring.
However, more importantly, there is better and more substantive debate if legislation is timetabled. It is also possible to win some of the arguments. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, timetabling normally means that what the Opposition want to debate is chosen. It avoids silly time-wasting when, to be honest, we do not all have the time to spare to debate through the night for no purpose other than to delay legislation to gain a tactical advantage.
On balance, I am convinced that, although the Opposition are giving away one of their present rights, in the end they are giving it away for something that will produce better legislation, give a greater opportunity to influence legislation and achieve better debate, and will not provide a disadvantage in terms of what is debated. I say

that as the hon. Member who, I believe, holds the record for keeping the House going for the longest time since the war, when I forced the House to sit for 37½ hours on the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties. It felt very good at the time, but at the end of the day, the Government got their business a day earlier than they would otherwise have got it. Therefore, to that extent, the delay was not worth it.
I believe that we should timetable legislation and speeches. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made a fair and generous point when he said that there must be fairness in the House between the Treasury Bench and Opposition parties. The one thing that I would want on behalf of my colleagues and me and on behalf of hon. Members who might be members of parties which are not the official Government or Opposition parties, is that any Business Committee that timetables legislation should include representation of that interest—as there is at the moment, quite properly, on the Committee of Selection.
There must also be fairness in respect of allocation of time for speeches. I heard the Leader of the House earlier, and I am aware of the problems with interventions. There must be fairness to avoid what happened in the debate on the common agricultural policy the other day, when the spokesperson for the third party was limited within the 10-minutes rule, but the Front-Bench spokesmen spoke for 37 minutes and 35 minutes respectively.
Fairness for different points of view enhances Parliament as a forum for debate. I hope that one of the things that will come out of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House is that all parties will be involved in the procedures in a way that they traditionally have not been during a generation when there were only two large parties as a matter of British constitutional tradition. I share the hope that we will proceed after this debate, which I accept was a necessary step, to implement the reforms as early as possible when the House returns in October, and certainly so that they take effect no later than 1 January 1993.

Mr. David Tredinnick: My most abiding and vivid impression of my first Parliament, which was the previous Parliament, was not of the Chamber or congested offices, but of the Library where, night after night on occasions, I saw senior Members—both in age and position—aroused from their slumbers in armchairs to vote, vote, return to their armchairs and go back to sleep straight away as though nothing had happened. They would then get up again, vote and go back to sleep.
As a newcomer, I marvelled at that performance. I could not understand how anyone could do that so quickly. I felt as though I was in a state of permanent jet lag, but those supermen and superwomen were able to treat our most anti-social and unusual schedule as though nothing were happening.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that this debate is very much for the new Members. It is a great pity that there are not more of them here. However, we are on a one-line Whip today and many hon. Members will have taken this opportunity, because of the pressures of the business of the House, to be in their constituencies—or perhaps to catch up with their sleep.
The procedures that we have seen this summer are not representative of the House in full swing in June or July. New Members would be ill advised to take their decisions on the basis of the business that we have conducted this summer. They have been lulled into a false sense of security; the business can he much tougher at this time of the year.
My belief in reform is absolute. That is why my first act in this new Parliament was to go to the Table Office and table early-day motion 9 to gauge support among hon. Members for reform. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) generously referred to my motion and to the 85 Conservative Members and more than 100 Opposition Members who signed it. However, there are also many other signatures from the minority parties. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale does not know that I have a sheaf of letters from Ministers, Opposition Front-Bench Spokesmen and Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who cannot, by convention, sign my early-day motion. The total of signatures is not 216—the most signatures that any early-day motion has attracted this Parliament; the real support amounts to nearly 300 signatures, which is almost half the House of Commons.
It would be bizarre if this House, which passes reforms that affect all walks of British life, should not apply that reforming spirit to itself. As televising has been thrust upon us, the demands are that much greater, as many hon. Members have said.
Our constituents do not like hon. Members to traipse through the Lobbies during the night, pretending that they are doing something useful when they are not. Because of our archaic procedures, they are simply following the rules that have been laid down to deliver the business. That cannot be the right way, and it must be changed. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) eloquently put the position for women, particularly northern women. She said that many ladies who represent northern constituencies have given up the option to have a family in order to come here. That is absolutely disgraceful.

Mr. Barnes: How many all-night sittings take place and how many hon. Members are expected to be present? Often, a small number of Opposition Members can keep the Government going. The Government require about 120 Conservative Members to ensure that there are 100 to vote on a closure motion, but that is done on a rota. Hon. Members are not always sleeping in the Library. The process is selective.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's view. With respect, he is being rather selective, too. If there is a three-line Whip, all hon. Members must be here. What is more, as the hon. Gentleman will know, at times there is pressure to find somewhere to put one's head down. I am not saying that that happens all the time—that would be misleading. My right hon. Friend the Chief Whip has said that he has tried to make the procedures easier within the existing constraints. That has been widely welcomed.
I now refer to the substance of the report. The proposals to reduce the number of late-night sittings are excellent. It is sensible, having read previous reports on how the Crossman experiment in respect of morning sittings worked, not to put business down for Tuesday and

Thursday mornings, as that would disrupt Standing Committees, but it is eminently sensible to try the experiment on Wednesday mornings.
I do not often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), but I have some reservations about doing away with so many Fridays. Fridays are good opportunities to be present. We are seldom required to be present. As there is much evidence of the pressure of time, knocking out Fridays is not the way to proceed. The way to proceed is to insist that we can get away at seven o'clock on Thursday evenings and have the option of Fridays. There do not appear to be many days of tough Government business on a Friday—I can hardly remember one.
The report says much about when and how often we vote, but nothing about a reduction in the time it takes to vote—that is, the mechanics of voting. I applaud the idea of putting money resolutions in substantive motions, but it is extraordinary that we have not considered electronic voting. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) complains. I am not suggesting that we should always vote by means of an electronic voting system. I know the arguments about Divisions being great opportunities for hon. Members to meet Ministers and senior Front-Bench spokesmen in the Division Lobbies, but surely we do not need to do that time and again in one evening.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is looking for extra hours to replace the business that he wants to take off after 10 o'clock. Surely we can experiment with electronic voting. I am fortunate because of my eastern European interests. I have been able to observe electronic voting in Parliaments in Moscow, Kiev, Bucharest and Sofia. They believe that electronic voting is a terrific help. The Bulgarian Parliament can conduct a vote in 20 seconds. Surely there is a way of marshalling some votes so that we can conduct them very quickly, thus saving much time. It takes the best part of half an hour for a Division on a three-line Whip.

Mr. Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend has mentioned countries that have just managed to emerge on the democratic scene. Is he proposing that as they have had such enormous experience of democracy and have push button voting we should follow them? Surely that cannot be part of his argument.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping me. Those Governments have examined all the best democratic systems and have formed a view of what is most efficient and what is best. I am not suggesting that for the House of Commons, but we should examine electronic voting as a possible way of reducing the time that we spend voting.
Another option is available under Standing Order No. 39 and that is votes being taken by hon. Members standing in their places in certain circumstances when the Chair believes that a vote would be carried by a substantial number of hon. Members. I have seen that procedure in action once. We should consider using Standing Order No. 39 more often.
Hon. Members have referred to late hours and family pressures. My family is very important to me. All hon. Members' families are important to them. The late hours make family life difficult. The uncertainty about the business of the House is a nightmare from the point of


view of trying to look after a family and one's constituents and interests in the House. Not knowing the business for Tuesday until Thursday evening makes life difficult. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for considering the possibility of giving greater notice of business. It is irritating never knowing what we are to do next week.
Surely there is a way of giving one day or two days' business two weeks ahead? Surely my right hon. Friend can give us one day when he can say, "That is a sure two-line Whip." He may not be able to give the business for the whole of the second week, but he might be able to say, "I am certain that Tuesday will be all right, but I cannot be sure about Wednesday and Thursday."
The Jopling report found that 50 per cent. of hon. Members were not happy with the recess times, because of the school holidays, and 72 per cent. of hon. Members were dissatisfied with the uncertainty of business in the House. I agree that the three-month break is absurd. I should like to share a memory with hon. Members. A very great friend of mine, the daughter of a very senior, alas departed, hon. Member told me, when I was contemplating a parliamentary career, how the parliamentary year had affected her family. She said, "I hate to see it. My father comes home at the end of July absolutely drained and exhausted. He then takes three months to wind down completely and then he has to wind himself up again in the autumn." That cannot make any sense, never mind the point about the House not sitting for three months of the United Kingdom presidency of the EC. Hon. Members do not need five weeks to travel by road to their constituencies. That is the reason we have the long recess. It must come to an end.
When the proposals come before the House on substantive motions in the autumn, as I hope they will, I shall urge hon. Members to vote for reform, particularly new Members, to avoid—

Mr. Alan Duncan: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Tredinnick: I am sorry, but I shall not give way, as I am finishing my remarks.
My hon. Friend should vote for reform to avoid themselves and their marriages being broken on the wheel of late and all-night sittings.

7 pm

Ms. Joan Walley: I have been saddened by what I have heard so far in the debate. I am reminded how difficult it is to get anything done in this place. Indeed, it was you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who reminded me that, after three years, it is at last possible to have a glass of water available in each Committee Room when Committees are sitting. If it takes that long to achieve that little progress, what hope do we have of creating a Parliament which is worthy of our parliamentary democracy and to which people can come to do the job that they were selected to do—to represent their constituents and play their full part in the proceedings at Westminster?
One of the arguments that we have heard so often this evening is based on almost deliberate misunderstanding. I want to see not merely reform but radical reform, so that

women in particular can come to the House and play a full part. When a substantive motion is put before us, we must address the need for Members of Parliament to have one job alone. The time they spend here should be devoted whole-heartedly to the House and the constituency.
Otherwise, we shall always work according to a set of assumptions which decree that we cannot start until 2.30 pm, except perhaps on one day a week if we are lucky. We shall be committed to sittings which continue all night and extend from Thursday into Fridays, for example. We shall not organise ourselves in a competent and efficient way. We should take one step back and ensure that there is no moonlighting. We should be here simply and purely to represent the needs of the people who elected us. That is fundamental.
I shall keep my speech brief, because we have had a lengthy discussion. One further issue must be addressed. I would introduce not merely reform but radical reform. I would introduce a new model for organising our debates. We should not play around the edges and change a Friday or Thursday here and there. My ideal world would be a cycle of four or perhaps five weeks of Committee meetings and opportunities for legislation. We would then have perhaps a week in which we could spend time away from the House legitimately in our constituencies and be in touch with the people we represent, attend meetings, organise surgeries and do all the things that a hard-working, conscientious Member of Parliament should do.
Such a model, which has already been adopted by other European Parliaments, would allow us to deal with the fundamental problem of how best to represent people. I am sorry that, in its deliberations so far, the Select Committee did not feel able to make such radical proposals. The report tinkers with the edges and satisfies no one. It may make matters better for some constituency Members of Parliament in London and the south-east or those who do not have families with whom they wish to spend time. The Committee may have thought that, by changing some of the hours, it could bring about change, but the change will not make it any easier to do the job that we were brought here to do.
I hope that the Leader of the House will table substantive motions early in the autumn. I hope that he will pay particular attention not only to Friday but to Thursday night sittings. What help is it to Members of Parliament who live far away to have 10 Fridays when we can be in our constituencies instead of in this place, if we cannot get away on Thursday night? Members not only from Scotland but from other parts of the country have long journeys home. It may be even more difficult to travel home to one's constituency and family if one cannot simply take a taxi to Heathrow and get on an aeroplane.

Mr. Dalyell: They can go by tube.

Ms. Walley: As my hon. Friend says, they can take the tube. In some parts of the country, we do not have rail services after 8 pm. If we are to have 10 Fridays on which we can make constituency commitments which are not subject to parliamentary business, it is important that we know with certainty that we can get away on Thursday night. It will be no use if we have to spend the night here in London because we cannot get home.
We must have access to public transport to return to our constituencies on Thursday nights, so that we can have


meetings all day on Friday, do the business that: our constituents want us to do and be lobbied. Let us face it: our constituents cannot afford to travel down to London to lobby us. In any case, there are no facilities at Westminster for them to make their points to Members of Parliament. I hope that the Leader of the House will take that point.
We should carefully consider the recesses. I was disappointed with what the Leader of the House said. I hope that he will spend the long summer recess reviewing the matter. In my radical alternative, we would have four weeks on and one week off for not eight months of the year, but the whole year. We would have the same holidays as everyone else. If we have any commitment to our constituency, our constituents and our families, what good is it if we cannot even book a holiday or a weekend away? Why cannot we have more detailed information about the summer recess and Easter? I urge the Leader of the House to consider that.
There is a danger that we shall end up with a system which will defeat people who are prepared to serve a constituency. Members of Parliament will end up as clones. It will not matter which side of the House they sit on. We shall end up with only people based in the south-east and London. That is fine if one has a constituency in that area and one can attend essential meetings during the day, but it is not fine if the constituency is some distance from London. We must address the issue urgently.
I do not want a system which allows few women to deal with the strains that being a Member of Parliament necessarily involves for not only women but men. We must ask how it is possible to juggle not merely the usual demands of work and family that everyone faces but the demands of work, constituency and family. Our job requires us legitimately to be in two places at the same time. To spend four and a half days a week at Westminster and an additional eight hours travelling to and from Westminster leaves us with precious little time to be with our constituents, never mind our families.
The House will be a worse place if people are forced to end all the ties with their constituency because they cannot live there as a result of the demand placed on them by Westminster. People will end up in desperate situations with their family life because they do not have the time to spend with their family. If we were prepared to manage our time efficiently and programme the parliamentary timetable, we could make tremendous improvements.
The greatest irony is that we talk about ourselves as the mother of Parliaments yet we positively discourage women from becoming Members of Parliament by having a system with which they cannot deal. I want changes, and I urge the Leader of the House over the summer recess to think about all the people who have resigned from the Government simply because they wanted to spend more time with their family.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Did my hon. Friend believe any of them?

Ms. Walley: I did not believe any of it.
Would it not be far more positive and constructive if people's energies were channelled into finding a way in which Members could come to Parliament to further the aims of parliamentary democracy and do exactly what they were elected for—serve their constituencies with

honour? I hope that, no matter how much time we have wasted already, when we debate the matter next time, we shall be in a position to make some real progress. I look forward to that day.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Some of this debate has sounded like shop stewards meeting to determine improvements in our contracts of employment. Perhaps we should all resign en bloc, study the matter properly, and ensure that our holidays and family relationships are sorted out before we decide whether to come back. As we all know, there is enormous competition to do our jobs, both within our own parties and, at general elections, across the party divide.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) touched on the subject of public opinion. For what it is worth, my view is that the public are somewhat perplexed about why we are increasing our expense accounts and proposing to cut our hours. Public opinion on the matter is rather mixed.
The nub of the problem, which has come out well in the debate, relates to the constitutional question and the relationship between the Executive and Parliament as the legislature. It is better to consider the problem in those terms, rather than in terms of Opposition or Back-Bench interests. A fundamental constitutional issue is involved which is peculiar to this country. We have a strong parliamentary tradition but, unlike the United States, there is no division of powers with separate powers being given to the Executive and to the legislature—powers with their own legitimacies.
We have an integration of powers, in which the Executive control the legislature, and would have to resign if they did not control it. We therefore start with a fundamental constitutional imbalance. Some European countries do not have a parliamentary tradition—the French, for example, have virtually dispensed with their Parliament—so it does not particularly matter. In our country there is at least the myth of a strong parliamentary tradition, but there is an imbalance because of the position that the Executive have built up over many years.
The question is whether that imbalance will be aggravated or worsened by the proposed measures. My submission is that it will. I have listened intently to the debate about time, which has been well argued by both sides. Of course I accept that the Government must have their business—that is part of our constitution. I also accept that we have left behind the romantic ages when we persuaded one another of anything through debate. There is no question of persuasion—we all have our views, we speak about them, and then we rush off to do whatever we have to do. There is no question of hon. Members listening and determining their view as a result of debate.
In many respects, the objective of the report is to improve the detail and honing of legislation. I accept that the proposals might provide extra time for detailed analysis in Committee, and that in the past that may well have been distorted due to the way in which we have conducted matters. However, time is the fundamental issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), among others, said that, since the Government get their way anyway, there is not much point in worrying about time, or even discussing whether


Parliament is a check or balance in the constitution. The Government get their way and we must organise things so that everyone can have their say tidily. That is the nub of the argument.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) shakes his head, but he advanced a similar argument. His speech was well reasoned and argued but as I understood it he said that, despite all their efforts, Oppositions never achieve anything, and instanced various occasions when he had been in opposition. That requires testing, first, from the point of view of whether protest through a row, or the threat of a row, is any check on the Executive.
Having been a member of the Executive for 10 years, I can say that, when we decided on details of legislation or the way in which we should present it or argue it in the outside world, the fact that we thought that there might be a major row which would affect the ease with which we secured the passage of a Bill did have an effect on the way we discussed the legislation. In many cases, the details of legislation and how Parliament should proceed with it were discussed in detail through the usual channels, so it is not accurate to say that the Opposition and Parliament have no control through timing. The unpredictability of timing is the key factor, because that determines whether the Executive must pause for thought before introducing legislation to the House.
One of the reasons why the Executive pause for thought and why the Opposition and other Members are able to discuss issues with the Government is that rows have affected the course of legislation and subsequent history. I was and still am in favour of the community charge, so I can say that. The rows over community charge legislation, many of which were associated with timetabling, percolated out, affected the mood outside, and therefore played a part. I concede it was not necessarily a decisive part and those rows were not necessarily the only constraints on Government. The present untidiness in Parliament is a strength of a constitution in which Parliament is pretty weak.
One of the reasons why Parliament is weak is that most of its Committee structure—certainly the Select Committee structure—is set up to deal with matters after they have occurred in Government. That has been the constitutional position of Parliament for many years. As events now move so fast, especially technological events, increasingly Parliament must have a role in pro-actively considering the options facing Government. That is one reason why I was honoured to take on the chairmanship of the parliamentary office of Science and Technology. That seems to be a new parliamentary organisation which, with staff, can begin to look ahead and to provide Parliament with the options so that it may debate the political dimensions. That aspect did not emerge in the report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), and we should be involved in such activity to a greater extent.
Before I conclude, I cannot refrain from saying that this debate may be academic if the powers of Parliament are transferred to European non-elected institutions, in particular, the Commission, the law courts and a central bank, if there is to be one; then many of these arguments may be fruitless. If that happens, there might well be a case

for timetabling ourselves strictly because debate would be a waste of time anyway. However, I do not think that we have reached that situation.

Mr. Tredinnick: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend's arguments. Does he agree that the Maastricht treaty would bring power back to this House? Would it not set the trend to bring back national powers from the European Parliament?

Mr. Spicer: If my hon. Friend is talking about subsidiarity, I thought that we had that already. I do not see the point of having to give away powers before the new institutions and, in particular, the Commission are generous enough to give them back. No doubt we shall debate that at some length in the autumn, or whenever the Government decide to move on the matter. I do not want to anticipate that too much, save to say that this Parliament is worth protecting and preserving.
Parliament is not in a strong position vis-a-vis the Executive or, increasingly, the European non-elected institutions. We should therefore be very wary indeed about doing something which, in my humble opinion, would be good for the Executive and thus almost, but not quite, by definition bad for Parliament. This is a very serious matter and I am highly sceptical about the propositions before us, especially those concerning timetabling.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) has just made a very fruitful contribution. Debate in the Chamber is important. In the 19th century, John Stuart Mill drew attention to the difference between putting forward dead dogma and putting forward an argument that was part of a living truth. One may speak the truth, but if people do not listen and if one does not have to justify one's position, the truth may die away, and the reasons for coming to the conclusion may disappear. However, when there is proper debate, even those who take up what are held to be correct positions are on much stronger ground as a result of having tackled other ideas and listened to other arguments.
That is what should happen in this House. We ought to have genuine debate. It should not be simply a question of blocks of Members doing their 10 minutes while everybody else waits around, nobody listening to what anybody else says. It should not simply be a matter of proceeding to votes as quickly as possible. If it were, everything could be worked out by machines. This ought to be a living Chamber, in which Members can alter situations by debate and discussion. Even if one were unable to influence a decision about a specific piece of legislation, one might alter attitudes in the House and in the country at large.

Mr. Dalyell: I would not interrupt my hon. Friend if his speech were limited to 10 minutes. That would be discourteous to a colleague. One may interrupt hon. Members—opponents or one's hon. Friends—if one knows that their time is not limited, but if my hon. Friend were time-limited, I would not muck up his speech by interrupting.

Mr. Barnes: That is how my hon. Friend behaves, but there are hon. Members who would interrupt. Of course, I could refuse to accept interventions, and could be just as rough as those seeking to intervene.
We often talk too much about our own concerns and problems, and too little about the needs of our constituents. I realise that, if we are half dead as a result of the way in which we do business, we cannot look after our constituents' interests properly, but there is a great deal of mythology. The problems are exaggerated.
Let me refer in particular to all-night sittings. It may be that debates involving three-line Whips that take place at one o'clock in the morning could be organised for more sensible times, but how often do we have all-night sittings for which all hon. Members are expected to be present? Last week, we put out a story that something called the Consolidated Fund Bill kept us here all night. In fact, the few people lucky in the draw and duty Front Benchers were the only ones involved. Those who did not put their names down, those who were unlucky in the draw and those who, like myself, came so far down that they withdrew their names were able to pop off and get to bed.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the last time there was consensus between the two Front Benches in respect of changes in the House was the occasion on which the Consolidated Fund Bill debate ceased to be a proper debate? We secured a major concession in terms of legislation. Under the previous system, debate was virtually open-ended. The current curtailment is due entirely to the conspiracy of consensus between the two Front Benches, and that appears to be very much the case tonight.

Mr. Barnes: I accept what my hon. Friend says—not because I was in the House at the time, but because he has already told me and I have not heard any counter-argument.

Mr. Rooker: I was in the House, on the Government side, when at 3 o'clock in the morning, during a debate on a Consolidated Fund Bill, there were 100 Members on the Opposition side. They learned the lesson. The Conservatives, in opposition, used the Consolidated Fund Bill, but having got into government, they made damn sure that that would not happen to them. The incident to which I refer took place about 1976.

Mr. Barnes: Obviously there will be 100 or 120 Members present for open-ended debates—for instance, for the Report stage of a Bill. In such circumstances, the Government must have 100 Members available so that a closure motion may be carried. Members may filibuster, intentionally or unintentionally, but the Opposition do not require massed ranks in those circumstances. A dozen people can keep things going, and the pressure is on the Government to close debate at a certain stage. But that is fruitful pressure, which does not necessitate the presence of all Government Members for the purpose of going through the Lobbies.
Arrangements are made to have people on duty at different times. We hear about people sleeping in libraries, but the difficulties ought to be put into perspective. We can all tell sob stories, but adding them all together creates a false impression. We do not often have all-night debates necessitating the presence of the massed ranks of Members. A few weeks ago, we had an all-night debate

about Maastricht, but the number of people who wanted to get on the record was relatively small. They were the ones involved in those matters—although others may have wondered whether they ought to turn up.

Mr. John McFall: As a member of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, I am very much aware of the fact that the 10 o'clock recommendation relates to primary legislation taken as the first Order of the Day. Does my hon. Friend agree that this place is really a museum, and anachronistic? We are arguing about the terms for all-night sittings. Surely, in the 20th century, we could finish our business by 10 o'clock. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very difficult to tell constituents that we cannot complete our business during the day and rise at a reasonable time? The current situation simply adds to the mystique of this place. It is absolute nonsense to argue that all-night sittings are necessary.

Mr. Barnes: It depends on what we are trying to do on behalf of our constituents. The Report stage of a Bill, for instance, may involve amendments that we have put down in the interests of constituents. It may be in the early hours of the morning that we have an opportunity to get a response from a Minister. Indeed, we often get quite favourable responses—favourable in the sense that they are levers that can be used in the future, if not promises to accept the arguments that have been advanced. Obviously I am in favour of sensible sitting arrangements. It might be helpful if we were able to start earlier and finish earlier, but hon. Members' involvement in Committee work has to he taken into account. Often, the people who are most active in Committee are the ones who are willing to stay late at night. They do not want to lose the opportunity to argue on behalf of their constituents.
We keep hearing about how this legislature has longer sittings than any other legislature in the world. The current Session will have included two summer recessions and a general election, and by mid-October next year, the House of Commons will have sat for 27 out of 63 weeks.
I do not think that that is too burdensome for hon. Members. We should tackle the problem of lengthy recesses—

Mr. Rooker: Those figures take account of two summer recesses.

Mr. Barnes: Yes, I accept that—

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend would be more open with the House if he said what the figures would be by the time we reach next June, because they would include two parliamentary years and two summer recesses, rather than two summer recesses and one parliamentary year. We can do arithmetic, Harry.

Mr. Barnes: I was open with the House, because I said that the figures related to a 63-week period, which included two recesses and a general election. Of those 63 weeks, we will have been here for just 27. I know that some adjustments to the figures should be made, but the big problem behind those figures is the two summer recesses. One of them lasted three months and the other for about 11 weeks.
Those lengthy recesses present us with a great problem, because they mean that our constituents, through their Members of Parliament, are denied avenues of scrutiny and the means to pursue grievances. It is all very well for


my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to say in answer to me that I can write letters to Ministers or organise deputations during a recess. I can write such letters when the House is sitting—I do so regularly—and seek to organise delegations. However, if a request to meet a delegation is refused by a Minister, it is much easier to try to reverse that decision if the House is sitting, because I can then use the various available avenues to pursue that matter.
The beauty of the House sitting is not so much that Ministers are present and respond to questions as that civil servants are available to respond on behalf of Ministers, because they try to protect Ministers from criticism. If they know that a Minister is to be criticised in the House, they will respond to that. During the recess, if I write a letter to a Minister and do not receive an answer, all I can do is to write again or telephone the Minister's private secretary to try to get a response. If the House is sitting, I can table a written question bout when I will receive a proper answer. One is always then told that the formal answer is on its way, or that it is in one's pigeonhole awaiting collection. Hon. Members may be able to write to Ministers, ring a private secretary, try to organise a delegation or issue a press release, but the success of such procedures is much more likely if the House is sitting.
We should not have a break of three months when avenues of representation are denied our constituents. We should follow the pattern advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley), of a parliamentary Session of four weeks, followed by a week's break, which could be called a "constituency" week. During that week, constituency meetings, activities and visits could be organised. If the House does not sit for a week, the other avenues of representation available to us—early-day motions and questions—are not greatly harmed. A three-month break does terrible harm to them.
A six-week summer recess, which allows for a holiday and a party conference, would be sufficient, as long as that break was built into the year so that we knew when it would occur. If we had a constituency week, hon. Members would no longer be able to argue with the Whips about why they should be away from the House because of pressing constituency duty. The Whips could then say that such Members should perform that duty in the constituency week, just like everyone else. In that way, the House would be more of a hive of activity.
We should not be concerned to debate our private lives and problems in public; we should be much more concerned about our public lives and the public avenues that we seek to use in the House on behalf of our constituents. If we do not want to build a pattern for the work to be done, there are masses of people who are willing to stand for Parliament to do it. It is amazing how people struggle and fight to get here, but, as soon as they do, they want to introduce measures to allow them to get away from the place altogether, or they seek membership of a Select Committee so they can pay visits all over the world. They do their best not to involve themselves in parliamentary procedures, but they are the justification for their presence here in the first place.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I agree with a great many of the prosposals in the report and I agree wholeheartedly with the suggestion that we should sit on Wednesday mornings. I also accept that we should have a certain number of so-called "free" Fridays, designated well in advance. Of course, they would not be free Fridays, but we would be able to make appointments in our consituencies, well in advance, without the danger, which we all face now, of having to cancel them at the last minute because of parliamentary business.
I agree with the suggestion that we should try to announce the dates of the recesses earlier than has been the practice. I confess that, on that issue, I am influenced entirely by my personal and family convenience. I do not think that that should be decisive in our consideration of the report, but this is one issue about which we can safely do something to contribute to our personal and family convenience without damaging our parliamentary functions.
It has been suggested that, if we announced further in advance the date on which the House would rise for a recess, it would establish a buffer. It was argued that that would constitute a challenge or temptation to the Opposition of the day to try to ensure that they ran the Goverment's business up and over that buffer. I cannot see any greater danger of that happening if the date of a recess is established six months in advance rather than just four weeks in advance.
Any advance knowledge of the recess date is a buffer—the present buffer is this Thursday. If the Opposition want to delay parliamentary business so that the Government are faced with the choice of either losing some of their business or suggesting to the House that we should rise at a later date, it is perfectly possible for them to do so. We can make a change to current practice, which would suit us all, without causing any damage to the important role that we like to think we play in the House.
I fear that I disgree with the real kernel of the report: that the House should rise regularly at 10 pm, or at 10.30 pm if one takes into account the Adjournment. I disagree with the natural corollary of that suggestion—that business should be automatically timetabled. Any attempts to establish an arbitrary limit on the time which debates can take can only have one effect—whether or not that is the intention, and I am sure that it is not—which is to curtail the range of opinion expressed and to reduce the scrutiny that we can apply to legislation.
We are all influenced in this matter by our personal experience of the business of the House. Last month, we had a debate on Maastricht, when I was called at about 6.30 am. I was delighted to be called then and to have that opportunity to take part in the debate.
I am only too well aware that, had I not been called at 6.30 am, the alternative for someone like me, who is not a member of the Government, a Privy Councillor or similar grandee, would have been not to participate at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] The fact that Opposition Members would he pleased to know that I could not be called in certain debates is the greatest form of flattery. I appreciate it and take the opportunity to thank them. It is the most sincere flattery that I could expect to receive from the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr Cryer).

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is not entirely clear to whom the hon. Gentleman is giving way.

Mr. Davies: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Bradford, South.

Mr. Cryer: The comments from these Benches were not derogatory. We were echoing the fact that a Conservative Back Bencher, who is not a Privy Councillor, had an opportunity of being called to speak because the House sat until a late hour. There is considerable resentment on both sides of the House at the fact that, although we are all elected equally, Privy Councillors have more access to the Chamber than the vast majority of hon. Members. Every Back Bencher should have an opportunity to be called in important debates. We were echoing support for the hon. Gentleman's view that the long hours of debate gave him that opportunity. It also gave some of us the opportunity.

Mr. Davies: It was not personal flattery but political support from the hon. Gentleman, and I value that, too, very much.

Mr. Dalyell: However deeply my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South and I may disagree with the substance of the hon. Gentleman's trite phrase, we would defend to the death his right to say it in the House of Commons.

Mr. Davies: Naturally, I reciprocate that sentiment and hope that it is one of the principles that bind hon. Members, from whichever party they come.

Mr. Jopling: I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend said about being called at 6 o'clock in the morning in the Maastricht debate. He implied that he was afraid that he could not have done that had the Committee's 10 o'clock recommendations been implemented. May I therefore direct his attention to paragraph 30 of the report, which says:
We accept that it should continue to be possible for the Government by means business of the House orders to extend or otherwise alter the time of sittings to meet the general wish of the House, for example, to accommodate those Members wishing to speak in debates involving constitutional or other matters of high importance.
The Maastricht debate in particular caused us to include those words in the report so that we could preserve the right of hon. Members to speak at 6 o'clock in the morning if they wish to do so.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful for that limited assurance in the report and to my right hon. Friend for drawing my attention to it. I did not miss it when I read the report, as I did with great attention and interest, but I wish that that protection were available for all Bills decided in the House because they are all important. Some may be more important than others, but our views will differ on the relative importance of Bills. As a Back Bencher, I do not accept that the Government should decide whether a Bill is so important or raises issues of such fundamental significance that it may be possible to allow even the most humble hon. Member to express an opinion on it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) triggers my memory about another personal experience. A few days ago, I was able to propose an amendment to the Finance Bill in Committee

shortly before breakfast time. I have no doubt that, had his proposals been implemented, I would not have had the opportunity to do so, because the Bill does not raise matters of fundamental constitutional importance.
I described this matter as the kernel of the proposals because it is about the House's ability to act as a check on the Executive and to conduct its traditional role of scrutinising legislation and the day-to-day governance of the nation by the Executive. Those issues were lucidly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer).
I recognise that there are abuses in the present system. In some ways, the abuses have inspired the desire to look again at our procedures and we should not be afraid to review them. The abuses form the bases of the report, and we all know what those abuses are. They have been referred to several times this afternoon.
There is a degree of filibustering in this place and I thought that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was a little self-righteous in saying that he had given up filibustering many years ago. He may not know that his party has not given it up in the past few years. Since I have been in this place, I have often listened to filibusters on private legislation here in the Chamber, and in Committees on public Bills upstairs, and they can be excruciating in the early hours of the morning, as they are intended to be. To respond to filibustering and to get their business through, the Government must naturally and rightly introduce a timetable motion—a so-called "guillotine". They have had that possibility for 100 years or so.
Those two factors are linked—one is the logical and necessary converse of the other. Both are undesirable, and I deprecate them. But the way to solve an abuse is not necessarily—still less ideally—to throw over the whole system. It is to deal with the abuse and limit, if not totally exclude, that abuse without totally destroying the merits of the system.
Although this is not the right time or place to examine proposals for dealing with abuses, we should look again at your right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of your colleagues to introduce a 10-minute rule on speeches. At present such a rule is limited to two hours in the evening. Perhaps you should have the right to impose that rule at any hour of the day or night, and Committee Chairmen should also have the right to impose that rule if hon. Members are wasting time and the only alternative is a guillotine motion.
Many of us would regard the imposition of a 10-minute rule on speeches as undesirable, as it is in many respects. Although the hon. Member for Copeland made it clear why it is undesirable, it would be more desirable than maintaining the dialogue of filibuster and guillotine, which too often happens. It would be much more desirable than the institution of a timetable motion, not as an exceptional measure but as part of the normal Standing Orders that govern our business, as proposed in the report.
That is my view on the substance of the report. A secondary point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South was not about the substance of the proposals and the likely practical consequence of implementing them but about the appearance of the proposals and the signal that will be received outside the House, intended or not, if we change


our Standing Orders along the proposed lines. I agree.with my hon. Friend that people would receive an unfortunate signal.
We live in a world in which far too many people find excuses for doing less. The hon. Member for Bradford, South will be on his feet again when I say that the European Community is proposing a working time directive in an attempt to make it illegal for anyone to work more than 48 hours a week. The trade unions are arguing for 37 or 35-hour weeks—as short as possible. A certain number of general practitioners are currently lobbying and writing to me suggesting that they be relieved of their 24-hour, round-the-clock responsibility for their patients. I note, however, that in many other contexts doctors are only too ready to insist on exclusive responsibility for their patients.
I fear that, if the House agreed to measures that would limit our hours or, at least, cut debate arbitrarily at a certain time, it would be thought—no doubt unjustifiably—that we had adopted those measures largely for our own convenience, rather than for the benefit of those whom we serve, or for the greater efficiency of the institution that we are all proud to serve. That would be very unfortunate; but, in the final analysis, we should take account of such factors. We must be governed in this matter, as in others, by our political and constitutional principles and our view of the likely impact on the workings of the House of any alteration in its procedures. Nevertheless, I feel that it would be wrong for a debate such as this to contain no reference to what is admittedly a secondary aspect.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and his colleagues: they have produced an excellent report and there is no doubt that they have satisfied a widespread feeling in the House that a review of our operations was needed. I hope, however, that my right hon. Friend will understand when I say that, in the light of the considerations that I have mentioned, I shall find it necessary to oppose the essential elements of the proposal if they come to a vote.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I apologise for my absence at the beginning of the debate. I found myself in a position in which many hon. Members are caught: as a member of the Select Committee on Information, I was required to attend to provide a quorum. It is a little ironic that hon. Members can be torn between the requirements of a Select Committee and the desire to be in the Chamber to comment on a report such as this.
I very much enjoyed sitting on the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, and I also enjoyed the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). What emerged chiefly from the report, however, was the absence of a consensus. The best that could be hoped for was give and take on both sides, and some progress on the basis that most people were dissatisfied with our present hours. Given all the pressures, it was not a bad report, and I put my name to it for that reason; but I should much prefer the House to sit regularly much earlier in the day. I think that 11.30 am would be a much better starting time, and that Question Time would

be better reported then. Many of my constituents would like to be able to watch our proceedings on television at lunchtime rather than in the middle of the afternoon.
Let me stress that most members of the Select Committee—and, I suspect, most hon. Members—do not want shorter hours; they want better hours. We do not object to the length of time for which the House sits. Many of us recognise the importance of expressing minority points of view, especially in the case of debates such as the one on Maastricht. We should, however, prefer as much debate as possible to take place during daylight hours, when it is likely to be reported, rather than late at night—on occasion, well into the early hours of the morning.
Having said that I am firmly in favour of better hours, let me add that I believe that that can be achieved without the timetabling of all Bills. It was unnecessary to bring that into the report. If we are to scrutinise the way in which Bills are handled, we should do so in some detail, rather than introducing the subject by the back door. Timetabling would transfer a great deal of power from Opposition to Government, which would prove very unsatisfactory.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and others have claimed that they can find no examples of the Opposition stopping a Bill's passage by using time—filibustering, perhaps. Of course that should not happen: if a Government have a majority, they should be entitled to get their legislation through. Nevertheless, I could cite many instances in which sensible use of time by the Opposition has persuaded the Government to modify legislation, and a useful exercise has resulted.
An example is the Education Act 1980. The Committee stage—when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was on the Front Bench—took long enough to enable people outside to organise opposition to the proposals to remove free school travel. Campaigns by the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches were not sufficient to persuade enough Conservative Members to throw out that part of the Bill, but they did persuade enough of their Lordships to do so, and it was lost. I believe that, if that Bill had been timetabled from the beginning, the Government would have insisted on pushing it through in a shorter time, and it would have been impossible for outside organisations to act.
A less controversial example is the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and I were members of the Committee, and Denis Howell—now in the other place—was on the Front Bench. Denis Howell did not want to be in the building a minute after 10 pm if he could avoid it, but on that Committee he carefully paid out the time to the Government. On some occasions, he stopped the Committee; on others he kept us on one point for the whole morning. As a result, he secured a number of concessions. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow managed to keep us up for nearly two hours after midnight on one occasion: again, concessions were obtained from the Government. The Bill was not fantastically controversial in party political terms, but I would argue that that was a sensible use of time by the Opposition. Improvements were made as a result.
Just before the election, we debated the Transport and Works Bill 1992, whose aim was to rid the Chamber of private Bills. We nearly secured an agreement between the Front Benches; the Bill could have been dealt with in four sittings without much difficulty. My hon. Friends the


Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), and one or two other Opposition Members, were not very happy with that proposal. After they had taken up nearly a whole morning with points that the Minister did not find particularly exciting, he suddenly decided that, given the approaching election, he had better have a look at the points that we were making about representations from the Inland Waterways Board and so forth. Within virtually one sitting, he had produced a number of concessions.
That too, was a good use of time. A coupe of academics outside the House told me that they were very puzzled by what had happened: a whole morning was taken up with pointless debate, and, following a rushed procedure in the afternoon, the Minister made a series of what were in effect concessions. That made no sense to people outside the House, but every member of the Committee understood what was going on. The threat of lengthy proceedings concentrated the Minister's mind, and we knew that he had to make some attempt to meet the Opposition's demands.
It would be a mistake to hand power from Opposition to Government, mostly because the House now deals with Bills in a very inadequate way. We need to examine our whole method of dealing with public Bills. If it then seems more sensible for the House to impose a timetable, let us do that; but we must examine the procedure first, rather than imposing a guillotine on all Bills and continuing to deal with them inadequately.
I stress that there is far too short a time between publication of a Bill and Second Reading in this House. Outside groups hardly have a chance to get hold of a Bill, let alone to read it; they certainly do not have time to put their case to Members of Parliament before the Second Reading debate. Furthermore, sometimes, when a Second Reading debate takes place on the Monday of one week, the Bill goes into Committee the following week, so it is extremely difficult for outside organisations to make their representations. There should be more time between publishing a Bill and Second Reading, and between Second Reading and Committee stage.
Committee proceedings can also be a farce. Many people outside want to make representations about a Bill. On the whole, t hey have to make them through Opposition Members, although sometimes they will find one or two willing Conservative Members to make them. Would it not be far better to set up a public system so that these people can make representations directly to the Government and to members of the Committee? Such a procedure came into being with Special Standing Committees. It was used about three times, and because Ministers felt that they did not do very well out of it, it was not used again.
It would be far better to put all Bills through that system of scrutiny than to continue making people outside submit representations at second hand to Members, who then try to dream up amendments—often only dodgily in order—to make their point. It would be far better to have a Special Standing Committee to examine a Bill—a great improvement, in short.
After the Committee comes the Report stage. When I came to the House, I thought that Report stages were well attended, but for several recent Bills, those stages have badly attended. Half the members of a Committee do not bother to come, and virtually no other Members turn up. Report stages have been devalued in many senses. The first part of a Report stage—dealing with representations made

in Committee—could be effected by the recommittal of the Bill. At that time, we could find out whether the Government had met the undertakings that they gave in Committee. There is no need for the whole House to go into that sort of detail. Points of principle should of course be dealt with on the Floor of the House.
In recent years, Report stages have often been hijacked by people interested in a subject that is only tangential to a Bill. A couple of environment Bills, covering a wide range of environmental issues, have been dominated on Report by the issue of dogs. That is extremely important, but I can well understand the resentment felt by members of the Committee, who, having gone through all the detailed work on the Bill, find that a new clause on dogs dominates the Report stage. We need carefully to examine the opportunities to bring in new clauses on Report.
Report stages can also be hijacked by people running a wholly different exercise, which has nothing to do with the Bill but something to do with another argument between Opposition and Government. We ought to leave the timetabling of Bills out of any discussion of improving the hours and let the Procedure Committee be set up again with the task of scrutinising the manner in which Bills are dealt with, to try to improve our scrutiny of them. Unless that is done, we could begin to rush into timetabling Bills, with the result that they are discussed far worse than they were before.
I must tell enthusiasts for guillotines that it is always possible to manipulate them. Once a line has been drawn, it is always possible to ensure that the debate that comes first after the line is not the debate of major substance—the latter gets squeezed. With timetable after timetable, I have seen Ministers encouraging Back Benchers to spend half an hour or 45 minutes on minor amendments so that the crucial one on which the Opposition want to concentrate the Minister's mind and the press's attention is squeezed out and not given as much time as it deserves. If we go in for the regular timetabling of Bills, more and more of this manipulation will occur.
As long as Bills are not timetabled, the Opposition are left with an area in which they can exert pressure on the Government. We have our formal proceedings, and we also have informal proceedings under which the usual channels meet to argue over how time should be allocated, when the Government should make a statement, and so on. The Government can always claim that they have a majority and can get their legislation through. The Opposition's only power is to be awkward and to make a nuisance of themselves.
Sometimes, when one or two of my hon. Friends have been involved in the Front-Bench negotiations, they have asked me to cause a bit of trouble and raise a few points of order—we all know that they are really points of disorder. They have asked me to make a row in the Chamber, thereby possibly enabling them to get a Minister to come and make a statement or give an answer. It is very difficult to keep such points in order while including a political message. An advantage of keeping Bills open-ended is that, instead of causing a row in the Chamber, we can threaten a series of votes. It is much better for the dignity of the House to be able to call a series of votes and to be able to make it clear that the Opposition are not happy with the negotiations through the usual channels than to raise points of order and make a row in the Chamber.
The more we remove the opportunities for the Opposition to make these points, the more we will end up like some other domocratic assemblies, in which Members have to be thrown out or sittings suspended. If the House wants to retain an effective safety valve, it should look very closely before introducing guillotines on all Bills. That would merely remove one more way in which the Opposition can show their displeasure.
I hope that, in the next 12 months, the Government will try to reduce the likelihood of our having to sit after 10 pm. I hope that we can try Wednesday morning sittings. I should like to adopt a much more radical approach and have the House meet each morning at 11.30. But it would be too high a price to pay for improving the hours if all legislation were to be guillotined. That would greatly reduce the powers of the Opposition legitimately to oppose the Government.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Originally, I had no intention of speaking in this debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Until the Whips told you to."] Funnily enough, that was not the reason—I have been spurred into making this modest contribution by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and by what I detect to be a relentless pressure from some quarters to change the procedures of the House for social rather than for good procedural reasons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth, who has temporarily left the Chamber, referred to the new boys perhaps needing more time to consider the changes proposed—[Interruption.] I am glad to see that my hon. Friend has returned. On my own behalf and, I suspect, on behalf of many other new Members on both sides of the House, I must point out that we revere the procedures of this House. Indeed, it was the reputation and historic fame of this Chamber which prompted us to seek election in the first place.

Mr. Tredinnick: I said that the debate was about giving new Members a chance to speak on the topic.

Mr. Duncan: I take my hon. Friend's point.
To many of us who have just been elected, there can be no greater compliment than to be called a parliamentarian. Anyone who adds to the reputation of the House deserves a higher compliment than many who have held the highest offices of state, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on the evident sanity of his Committee's recommendations. However, I endorse them with some reluctance, because I do not want to see fast changes. Morning sittings are totally inconsistent with having members of the Executive also Members of the legislature.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: That is poppycock.

Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend says that that is poppycock. When she was a Minister how could she have organised her busy diary if she had been liable to be called here at any moment under the legitimate procedures of the House?

Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend is doing very well so far. I was called here. Ministers are frequently called to various Committees—including, for example. the new European Standing Committee, of which I am a volunteer member.

Mr. Duncan: I bow to my hon. Friend's greater experience. Nevertheless, if the House is in permanent session in the morning, that will increase the difficulty of organising ministerial diaries.

Mr. Cryer: I give the organisation of ministerial diaries a low priority. However, on Tuesdays and Thursdays there are morning sittings of Standing Committees, which are often attended by Ministers. There are also morning Committees on Wednesdays at which affirmative resolutions are often dealt with. It would be difficult to organise morning sittings of the House and enable hon. Members to work in Committees as well on those three mid-week mornings.

Mr. Duncan: For once, I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. Any proposal for morning sittings in the Chamber merely compounds the problem that he has properly described.
The Committee does not propose electronic voting, but we have to look to our public because such voting is widely discussed. I abhor such voting. We have not been elected to sit in a queue pressing buttons. How can we know that the right person is pushing the right button'? What procedural problems will arise from a blown fuse? Anyone who is prepared to register his vote should hold his head high, march through the Lobby and be seen to register his opinion on the record of the House. Electronic voting is no more desirable than the replacement of the Speaker by a robot.
A fixed-term Parliament was discussed, and was also raised during the election campaign. I totally reject it. What could be more dangerous to democracy than the Opposition's knowledge that an election would not be called for four or five years? What better encouragement could there be for the Opposition to lie idle and not attack the Government than the knowledge that they will not be called to account in a general election at any time? The proposal is inconsistent with the traditions of the House.
My main argument is that, after 13 years of Conservative government, there is a great danger that any proposal to reform the procedures of the House will be influenced by the stability that the House has enjoyed during that time. In shaping amendments, we must look many decades ahead to possible changes in the party system and to the more acute balance of influence in the House which would make procedure of paramount importance for the workings of the democratic process in the country at large.
After I left school, I watched the debates in 1976 when Government and Opposition were in a delicate balance. I remember the tied vote on the Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments) Act 1978. Some would argue on good procedural grounds that the vote was not tied at all. I remember the debate on the confidence motion in 1979. In those matters, every procedural device used by the Opposition was of the utmost importance. Perhaps those devices now have limited effect, but we cannot foresee when they might become of supreme importance and perhaps of value to us or to the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) should continue to filibuster, using every device he can


find, because, who knows. in the far distant future that may be of use to my hon. Friends and to me. I am for the reforms, but I say, "Thus Far, but no further."

Mr. Jeff Rooker: The great merit of the speech by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is that it was made by a new Member. We were told that the debate was for new Members to assess the position following the election and that that was why no decision was taken in the previous Parliament. However, until 10 minutes ago no new Members attempted to speak. The hon. Gentleman finished by saying he supported the recommendations. That was a surprise in view of what he had said earlier in his speech.
I did not come to speak, but, except for two minutes, I have been here for the whole debate. Before I came to the House just over 18 years ago, I heard a Member who is no longer in the House say that we represented our constituents at Westminster and not Westminster in our constituencies. That may have been true in the past, but it is not the case today. I am held as much to account in my constituency for what happens here as I rely on my constituency for the material that I use here to represent my constituents. There is some merit in arguing for constituency days or weeks.
Some years ago I learned about the way the Australian Parliament works. I hasten to add that I did not learn that from a visit there. Because of the distances, it sits for only four weeks at a time so that Members can return to their constituencies. There is some merit in that. I do not accept the argument about the length of recesses. When Parliament is convened after an election it should remain in being. However, it should not be in continuous session.
I have never understood why we cannot table written questions during a recess and have them answered. I have never understood why we cannot table early-day motions during the recess and get them printed on an Order Paper. The one crucial thing we lack during a recess is parliamentary privilege. We have it in a partial, qualified way through letters from Members to Ministers. However, if key issues arise, we should be able to raise them and, by a combination of written questions and early-day motions, with an Order Paper and a weekly Hansard, we could overcome many difficulties.
I do not wish to argue about the number of hours we sit, but, as we are the most centrally governed country in Europe, it is bound to be the case that we sit longer. The Government hold the power in our unitary state. It is not divided as it is, for example, in Germany, which is a federal country. France has an independent form of local government, so it is not necessary for the French Parliament to sit for long hours.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton reminded us of 1976, but I was going to use the example of 1977. When I served on the Committee examining the Finance Bill in 1977 and took part in the debates on Report, I did not need time, I did not need to filibuster and I did not face the threat of a guillotine to stop me and my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), who then represented Coventry, South-West, to amend the Budget. We were told that we should not have done it, but it was probably one of the most popular moves to benefit the low-paid that we ever made.
We used parliamentary procedure, but we used a device that has not been used by Conservative Members in this long period of stability. I will not use the word "courage", because it did not take courage, but we were prepared to use our vote in the way that we saw as best for our constituents. We put them before the Government of the day, not before our party because our party policy was clear. In the past 13 years, not enough Conservative Members have been prepared to do that. I remember the Monday on the Report stage of the poll tax Bill, when we debated the Mates amendment. The Opposition had agreed that it should be debated on that day. The Government's majority was 25, so obviously many Conservative Members voted against the Government, but such examples are few and far between.
We boast that we are the oldest Parliament in Europe, implying that we are the best, but we are the only Parliament in western, industrialised, old-style, democratic Europe that works on the basis of the whipping system, patronage, Orders in Council and guillotines by the Government of the day. That is a powerful combination. It is difficult for us to boast to other parliamentarians about how good and strong our Parliament is when the Executive have at their disposal all the weapons to manipulate Parliament, to snuff out opposition and to create circumstances in which Government Back Benchers do not feel free to speak and vote as they ought to.
I am not in favour of rebellion every day. That is stupid, because one devalues one's vote and one's voice. However, all rebellion has been snuffed out over the past 13 years, and that is sad.

Mr. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend accept that the attraction of the Rooker-Wise-Lawson amendment was that the Government of the day could not gag my hon. Friend because there was no procedure for timetabling the Committee stage of the Finance Bill? Therefore, as long as my hon. Friend had the courage to stick to the amendment, it was bound to be debated and there was bound to be an opportunity to have a vote on it.

Mr. Rooker: That is the case. The Government of the day accepted the amendment and it was never challenged on the Floor of the House. That is unusual, because normally Governments seek to overturn defeats in Committee. On that occasion, they did not do so, but that was probably because they knew that they were going to lose because the amendment was so popular. My hon. Friend is right. The guillotine was never a threat. It did not figure in our calculations. We tabled an amendment and we chose to vote for it or to abstain.
It is a pity that the Leader of the House is not here, because we supported his amendment on that occasion. The first amendment on upgrading tax allowances was his, but, because we voted for it, he never got the credit for it. The indexation came later in the day during a whole series of votes. I am sure that the Leader of the House remembers it, because I saw him look across the Chamber at an earlier speaker.
After 18 years here, I am still a reformer, but I would not go for electronic voting. I see merit in what is perceived as our arcane system of voting. However, I would go for timetabling of Bills. When we talk about timetabling, we think about guillotining, because that is what we are used to dealing with. However, if the timetable were based on an end date—by and large, the Government of the day will


get their way provided that they can carry their Members with them—we could agree on the way that the available time was used. I do not mean just a number of hours but the time between one day of debate and another.
The amount of time devoted to the Bill should be within the control of the Opposition, and if we chose to debate all through the night on one occasion, that would be our decision. If we had the final decision on how the time was divided, we could choose the key subjects, as I said earlier in an intervention.
The poll tax Bill spent 200 hours in Committee, but, out of 200 clauses, we debated only about 40.

Mr. David Blunkett: Only 21.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend reminds me of how few it was; he served on the Committee with us.
We hardly got anywhere. We never debated any of the business taxes or other important matters. However, when we had five days on Report under the guillotine, the Opposition chose what was debated each day and we chose what time matters were debated each day. On behalf of the Opposition, I drafted the business statement. Ministers did not care. They told us that we had five days and should use them as we liked. We raised all the issues that we wished to raise, although we felt deprived because we had not raised them in Committee. That is an inefficient way to do it, but if we were given an end date and the Opposition were given some control over the way the time was used, that would be a good system.
I agree that there should be longer time between the publication of a Bill and Second Reading and then between Second Reading and the Bill going into Committee. That is crucial. This recent nonsense of the Bill being published on a Friday, Second Reading being on the Monday a week after, 10 days away, the Committee of Selection meeting on the Wednesday and the Bill in Committee on the following Tuesday has to stop, especially for important Bills. That procedure is an affront to those outside on whose behalf we are legislating. Any agreed arrangement on timetabling must include an improvement on that practice.
The idea of Fridays off is a good one, but it must go with early Thursday evenings. The one without the other would be ludicrous. We can all swap our diaries showing what we do on Fridays. It has been said that we can choose to come to Friday debates is we wish, but it is not like that. Many of us are terrified of entering the ballot for motions for Fridays when we look at what is in our diaries for Fridays. We know that we will have given a firm commitment to a whole series of people and organisations—chambers of commerce, schools and others whom we cannot meet on a Saturday or Sunday.
Many more Members of Parliament enter the ballot for motions to be debated on Mondays because that does not interfere with their constituency time, which is extremely valuable. Front-Bench speakers have a similar problem. They do not know whether they will be called for Front-Bench duty because the subject chosen—a choice out of their control—is one on which they have to reply. That is true of the Consolidated Fund as well. There is a compromise to be reached, whether we do it by the Select

Committee report recommendation or by the more radical proposal of a week off every four or five weeks. There is scope for compromise, but it must be reached quickly.
I fear that we shall return in October and face a delay of a few weeks before there is a substantive debate. We shall then be told, "We cannot alter the Sittings of the House this Session. The revised sittings must start in November 1993 because of the legislation that is already under way. We must consider Ministers' diaries and the programme of parliamentary questions and answers. Days have already been set aside for private business on Fridays." We shall be under pressure to delay the implementation of anything that we agree until the beginning of the next Session after we return in October. That will be sad. There should be best endeavours to implement the maximum number of agreed recommendations from January next year. That would be to the benefit of Members and of those whom we are here to represent.
One or two Members have spoken—it is their prerogative to do so—as if we are proceeding for our convenience. We are all privileged to be elected to represent our constituents. We are the last port of call for many of them. In many instances, we are the only voice they have in our archaic electoral system. That is something that I do not propose to go into. I could have been misled by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, who talked about fixed-term Parliaments, a subject which is not part of the report. If it were, I would have tabled amendments with a view to securing a longer debate.
We Members are transient; we are passing through. It is important that we think about our procedures for the future and learn the lessons of the past. I am glad that I have had the experience of sitting on both sides of the Chamber. I fear for those who have sat on only one side of it. When I listened to the previous debate on these matters—it took place before the general election—I thought, "There are going to be some new Ministers with a bit of luck after 9 April. Will this be good or bad?" The issue is whether changes will be good or bad for Parliament. It does not matter whether they will be good or bad for the party which is in opposition or in government. Some of the recommendations will be to the advantage of the Government, but others in the package will be of advantage to the Opposition. As a package, they are of advantage to the House. That is the basis on which we should arrive at our decisions.
We all have experience both inside and outside the House and I hope that we are all mature enough now—we have been able to talk about these matters in two debates and we have listened to at least one new Member voice his opinions, an opportunity which the debate was designed to present—to make some early decisions and to sell them to the country.
I caution any hon. Member who has not attended the debate and who has the temerity to enter the Chamber tomorrow to say, "Well, you spoke and voted for shorter hours of sitting and shorter weeks yesterday and you want more money tonight." We shall get ignorant contributions of that sort tomorrow from Members who have not been in their places this evening. The fact is that we need better resources. We need a better-informed House so that we are able more effectively to challenge the Executive. I say that on behalf of both Opposition and Government Back-Bench Members. Hours of sitting and resources are separate matters.
Over the past 13 years, since a Conservative Government have been in office, I have spent 11 years on the Opposition Front Bench. One of my reasons for having two years off it was to get some experience of Select Committee work. The two years that I spent on the Public Accounts Committee taught me more about the machinery of government than all the time that I spent on the Opposition Front bench. Those two years were extremely valuable. I know that that view is shared by many hon. Members.
There were many times on Mondays and Wednesdays when I regretted that I had to leave the Chamber to attend sittings of the PAC. The fact is, however, that that business is crucial. The Committee was able to bring civil servants to account. It was not possible to exert that discipline over Ministers because they do not appear before the Committee. As I have said, the work of the PAC is extremely valuable. We must take cognisance of that and, as individual Members, take a decision. We cannot be in Committee and on the Floor of the House at the same time.
On the other hand, that is no excuse for saying that we should not change the sitting hours of the House because it would mean that it would not be possible to do our work in Committee. It is vital that we should accept the Wednesday morning experiment. If that means that the parliamentary Labour party has to change the time of its meetings, that is neither here nor there. It will be able to find another slot in the week.
By and large, I support the package before us. What can be agreed must be implemented from January 1993. There must be no messing about with delays until the next Session. We can make adjustments to the decisions that are already being made about Friday sittings to meet everyone's convenience when it comes to private Members' Bills. That can be done without any difficulty. I implore the Government—it is in their gift—to organise our procedures to ensure that that happens.

Mr. Derek Conway: The fact that I stand in my place in splendid isolation has more to do with my being at the tail end of a flu virus than interest in the report. The thing that worries me is that I agree with just about everything that was said by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—a unique experience in my nine years in the House. The hon. Gentleman's contribution was thoughtful and I cart think of few points which would cause me to disagree with him.
I think especially of the hon. Gentleman's warning to my right hon. and hon. Friends about thinking of being on the Government Benches for ever. I fear that there is a tendency for some of my colleagues to think that their present position will ever he so. That is why it is important that the House should proceed with great care when it comes to change its procedures. That applies especially to those of us who sit on the Government Benches in the belief, perhaps, that we shall always occupy them. The same point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). I suspect that, by the time he finds himself on the Opposition Benches, he will be the Father of the House, so he has some time to prepare himself.
I was intrigued to see how the Committee had come to terms with and arrived at a balance between those who are

primarily London-based Members—sadly, not all of them represent London constituencies, but they are capital-based Members—and those of us who, perhaps by perversity of nature, insist on being thought to be, and adamantly continue to be, provincial Members.
I have always been a reluctant reader of the Evening Standard because I do not wish to be sucked in, as some Members are, to living in London and being in London. I suppose that that is why my wife and I have always ensured that our small flat is an especially grotty one and not one in which we wish to spend a great deal of time. Like many Members—perhaps younger Members—my family remain in my constituency, which is in Shropshire. Anyone who has visited Shropshire—particularly Shrewsbury, which I am blessed to represent—will understand immediately why it is preferable to be thought of as a provincial Member and to be based in such a place to being a London Member who makes the occasional visit to his constituency to make sure that ail is well.
I suspect that the days are long since gone when Members could get away with an annual visit to their constituencies, with the station master meeting the train wearing a bowler hat and white gloves. The pressures upon Members—this is certainly the view of colleagues who have been in the House for far longer than myself—have undoubtedly increased considerably. That is why I am particularly pleased with the Committee's conclusions on morning sittings and the fact that it did not plump for the four mornings per week option. Those of us who live in our constituencies and spend three, four or five hours travelling to London need Monday mornings to get to Westminster. If those mornings were not available to us, we would have to travel on Sundays.
The press comments on how the House works and the long summer recess, which it describes as a holiday. It often does not focus on our working week. Over 25 years in politics and nearly 10 years in the House, I have seen no reference to the fact that many Members spend at least a day a week getting backwards and forwards from their constituency to the House. It seems to be thought that we materialise in the House at will.
As I have said, I was intrigued to see how the Committee would arrive at a balance between those who have families in London and therefore are probably quite keen to be away from the House at 6 pm, and those of us who have families in constituencies away from London, whose wives are probably not too keen on the idea of our being footloose and fancy free after 6 pm. One of my wife's great attributes is that she has steadfastly refused to take a close interest in politics. She has been concerned that the House will change its routine and that I shall be able to go—perhaps with my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), whom I see in his place, and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—into the wilds of Soho to be led astray, for want of parliamentary business to keep me occupied.
On behalf of Mrs. Conway, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Committee, that she is glad that the House will not adjourn too early in the evening, so she will know exactly where I shall be during an evening in London alone.
I am pleased to note that recommendation 47 will give the House the opportunity to meet on a Wednesday morning. As I was not in the House when the experiment was tried some years ago, I have no idea how it will work, but many of us are looking forward to it. It is a cautious attempt, but it is worth a try.
I am also pleased with recommendation 82—something about which my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary is less enthusiastic—on the setting of the parliamentary year. For many hon. Members, much depends on the ages of their children, whether or not they are at school and even whether they want their company. I remember that, in my first year as a Member of Parliament, I was cautioned by a senior and outgoing Member about my enthusiasm for the House to rise early in the summer so that I could see my children during the summer recess, rather than going into recess only couple of weeks before they were back at school. He predicted that within two decades I would be wishing that the House would sit throughout the entire summer period so that I had an excuse not to return to the family. I am glad to say that I have not quite reached that stage.
The media will write tomorrow night about secretarial allowances, just as they have written about summer recesses. I am not sure what they mean by "summer holidays". When I was a new Member of Parliament, I visited a factory in Shrewsbury—a large employer—during my first summer recess. Its marketing director was giving a presentation about the work of that wonderful organisation. He summed up by saying to me, "While you are on your summer holidays, we are keeping the wheels of industry turning."
I have had enough of that twaddle. My idea of a summer holiday is to be in my Shropshire garden with the children, not sitting in a factory listening to its tales of woe, however justifiable they may have been. That chap spoke as though sitting listening to him whining was a holiday. It is quite a perverse view, but many of our constituents reading the newspapers think that the summer recess is a summer holiday. Since that experience, I have not been afraid to remind my constituents that it is not.
The House sat until 2 August one year during my time here. As many people know, the Scottish schools return quite early, and even schools in England are now returning earlier than they used to. The amount of time available to a Member to spend a holiday with his young children is nothing like the length of the summer recess, which the editors of the tabloids would have our constituents believe is a holiday. The recommendation to specify the Christmas, Easter and Whitsun recesses is welcome, and will be even more so for those Members with young children.
Recommendation 84 to rise by mid-July is good. I hate being in London in July. I know why we have to be here, but it has nothing to do with parliamentary business or the timetable of Governments—

Mrs. Currie: It is the garden parties.

Mr. Conway: It may be because of the Buckingham palace garden parties, or even the Prime Minister's receptions, but I think that it has more to do with the timing of the party conferences. The Labour and Tory party conferences are held in October—the Liberal Democrats have theirs in September—and the House cannot sit during those great occasions. Instead, we have to be in a sweltering London in July and fight our way through the crowds of tourists, mostly American, to get to the House. That enables us to be present and to cheer at our party conferences, which we all loyally love to do. The

recommendation to rise by mid-July is not over-ambitious. Indeed, if it were to be early July, so much the better. If that also gave us an excuse not to attend the party conferences, that would be even more welcome.
The proposal to announce two weeks' business in advance is helpful. The hon. Member for Perry Barr spoke about organising constituency events. It is difficult for our constituents to understand the short notice of proposed business. Most of them have no idea that we find out the following week's business on the previous Thursday. They cannot believe that we operate in such an inefficient and unclear way, but we do. Even if the House takes a long time to push through the report—which it shows every sign of doing—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary will look kindly on introducing that reform of his own volition. I do not think that it would require a change in the procedure of the House and it would be a welcome gesture. Most hon. Members enjoy being in their constituencies and want to plan for that.
The old adage that we have to be in Parliament to represent our constituency, rather than representing it in the provinces, is still frequently heard, but times and demand have changed and constituents will no longer put up with an absentee Member of Parliament. Anyone who goes about his business in that way will get short shrift, not only from his constituents but from his constituency party. The demands upon Conservative Members have changed during my 25 years in politics. Perhaps the Labour party has always ensured that its Members of Parliament are accountable to its organisational structure, but that is a fairly recent innovation for the Tory party—although it is clearly growing. The House must take account of that and respond to it.
I have my doubts whether the proposed changes will make us a more effective legislature. I often think that, as a Chamber, our only way to control the Executive would be to make talking or any form of communication between the usual channels a capital offence. Then Members of Parliament might have some small say in the way in which the House regulates itself and tries to monitor what the Executive are doing.
This is a thorough report, which we considered before the general election and are considering again today. I share the view of many hon. Members that the recommendations should be introduced soon, rather than drifting on towards next year or even the end of the session. It is not an over-radical report, so it should not worry Members. Provided that the House accommodates Members of Parliament with independent spirits and minds, such as the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), and allows them to keep us here—even those Members who support the Government—when we do not want to be here so that they can make difficult comments, the system cannot be too bad. It is not a radical report, but it is long overdue. The sooner the House endorses it, the better.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Consensus in this Chamber is the worst aspect of Parliament at work. I well recall the day in 1981 when it was agreed that the Consolidated Fund should be changed to a series of Adjournment debates and that the holiday Adjournment


debates should he limited to three hours. The debates used to be open-ended and people could come here in the knowledge that they could take part in a debate. The Consolidated Fund Bill debate lasted all night and was regulated by hon. Members. They would put down their names to speak on a particular subject and those subjects would be debated for three, four or five hours, while smaller debates were over in half an hour. The system worked extremely well.
There was an awkward point—the Government had to get 100 Members here for the closure motion in the morning and 100 for the closure motion on the holiday Adjournment debates. That was just a little inconvenient. One day, the Labour Opposition ran away with the debate and took the Consolidated Fund debate through the night and the next day. We said to the Government, "Give us some concessions on the Housing Bill or we will keep running." We gained important concessions.
What did we do then? We said that there was a strong chance that at the next election in 1983 we could form the Government, so it would he awkward to have to find 100 Members for the closure motion in the morning. Therefore, the Labour party agreed with the Conservatives to abolish that practice and instead have a series of fixed Adjournment debates. That was very neat and tidy, but we can no longer run away with the debate. That gives the Government an advantage.
There is a rich stench of that around the report. A number of Labour Members thought that the report was not a bad idea and that the timetabling of Bills would be very neat and tidy when we formed the Government in April. Of course, the election did not turn out as was intended. That is one of the problems with democracy—we can never be sure of the outcome. Now that things did not turn out as we expected, Labour Members are changing their minds and retreating. That is right and proper.
The name of the Chairman of the Committee was announced before the membership of the Committee, which is pretty unusual. The reason was that the Committee was chosen to produce a result. The result was intended to be to make everything here neat and tidy. One of the great advantages of this place is that it is not neat and tidy. I have been in a neat and tidy place for five years; it is called the European Parliament. I call it an assembly because it is not a legislative body. Everything there is organised by the parties. It had electronic voting which used to break down regularly, although it was state of the art electronics, and which was the subject of an enormous amount of fiddling.
Simple systems may be old-fashioned and unpopular. Going through the Lobbies is a simple system and if one supports the Government, one can get hold of Ministers. If one is an Opposition Member, one can also get hold of Ministers if one wants to twist their arms about something. It is very difficult to cheat. That is not much of an issue at the moment, but if there is a minority Government or a Government with a majority of two or three, cheating may become an important issue on special occasions. We should not ignore that factor in modernising Parliament because of considerations of fashion.

Mr. Oliver Heald: One of my first experiences here was the debate on the Ways and Means resolutions. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) may recall that he forced Conservative

Members through the Lobbies time after time. Opposition Members clocked up between nine and 15 votes each time, whereas my hon. Friends clocked up about 250 votes. If we had had electronic voting, the whole procedure could have gone through in a short time. In the event, it took more than three hours. That time could have been used for useful debate. Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that it was rather a waste of time and that electronic voting would have helped?

Mr. Cryer: I do not want to go too far down that road because the subject is not part of the report. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that in this place, we have the old platitude of checks, balances and leverage. The opportunity of voting 10 times is often a useful lever with which the Opposition can gain some concessions from the Government. There are, for example, 10 orders tonight which are to be taken forthwith, which means that they can be voted on. That can be handy if the Opposition want to gain some concessions. It may be relatively trivial, but over a period of weeks it could make things difficult for the Government. I take the view that we could run this place ragged if we set our minds to doing so. It would be awkward, but it is a possibility.
I do not make that comment in a macho spirit of male assertion. Long speeches and voting are nothing to do with assertion of masculinity. They are intended to get concessions from the Government. Hon. Members do not undertake long speeches for the sake of it; the purpose is to try to obtain concessions. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) pointed out that the Opposition used that tactic on the Transport and Works Bill, which was going to go through on an agreed basis in a couple of neat and tidy sittings. As some of us did not like that idea, we spoke lengthily on the sittings motion and we went into detail. Eventually the message got through to the Minister and his hon. Friends that it would be a long and difficult Committee unless some co-operation were established and unless some concessions made. Concessions were produced, the Committee proceedings were good and the Bill was much improved after the Committee stage. That is an important point.
People accuse me—I wince at this—of being a good parliamentarian—[HON. MEMBERS: " Never."] It is pretty dreadful, but they do say that. I have a private list of people who make such accusations. My emphasis is always on the constituency. I have always been a Member of Parliament for marginal seats and I always emphasise the importance of constituency work. In my present constituency, I maintain a full-time office. I do not say that Parliament is everything and then ignore the constituency. My constituency is important, but I do not see that it is necessary to have 10 Fridays off per Session to provide a compulsory opportunity to be in the constituencies.
As I said in an intervention, there is an opportunity for hon. Members to be in their constituencies on many Fridays. People in Bradford, South do not say to me, "Why were you not down there speaking on the disposal of Welsh toxic waste last Friday?" It is not a subject which is greatly debated in Bradford, South. Last Friday was an opportunity for me to spend as much of the day as I could in my constituency. Such opportunities often occur. Fridays provide a valuable opportunity for hon. Members—last Friday, it was Welsh Members—to raise constituency matters in the most important assembly in


the country. Getting rid of 10 Fridays is potentially wrong. As usual, it is not the Government who will suffer: it will be Back-Bench Members who suffer. They will also suffer in other ways.
The Committee started off on the wrong basis. There are a few paragraphs at the beginning of the report to justify the Committee's course. It should have begun by asking, "Is Parliament doing a good job? Is it scrutinising all aspects of Government work and ensuring that there is an element of accountability? Can we improve that if we change the hours?" The Committee started, because of the composition of the membership, on the basis of changing the hours and then fitting the scrutiny with the changed hours. The approach was back to front.
The proposals were made under the cloak that women would be more attracted to the idea of entering Parliament if the hours were changed. I do not share that view. People may say, "Of course he would not." I have discussed the matter extensively with my wife, as I am bound to do, and I have not taken a narrow male view. We both take the view that there will always be difficulties for provincial Members. Underlying the report is the convenience of London-based Members, not the convenience of provincial Members.
It is up to the political parties to determine that women should come into this place. There are many able women who are willing and eager to come into Parliament and to serve their party and their constituents here. For a variety of reasons, they do not get in here. Women on the national executive committee of the Labour party must be more determined to put women on short lists. I well recall—this is no reflection on my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), who ran an excellent campaign—that two women were nominated for the by-election short list. Neither was even proposed by any women members of the national executive committee of the Labour party.
Until that kind of omission is rectified, women will find great difficulty in getting elected to this place.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has given way to a provincial female Member of Parliament. I believe that it is exceedingly important that we should be able to rely on Fridays to do things like visit schools. One cannot expect a headmistress to suddenly jack in everything because one is coming to visit the next day because our business has been changed.
We should be able to plan ahead for visits to schools or factories. We should not have to tell people at the last minute that we are descending on them. Such planning is very important for me. Yorkshire may be a little closer to this place, but I have a five-hour journey to get to my constituency and I will value those 10 Fridays.

Mr. Cryer: I disagree with the hon. Lady. I believe that hon. Members can plan visits in advance on most Fridays. However, it would be difficult for hon. Members to get away on some Fridays, particularly when there are debates on controversial private Bills. People outside this place may press hon. Members to be present for such debates because of their controversial nature.
I do not believe that the Select Committee report deals adequately with statutory instruments. Many detailed aspects of people's lives, including their benefits, housing

and construction and use of motor vehicles are dealt with in statutory instruments. The vast majority of legislation is carried out through delegated legislation: between 1,500 and 2,000 statutory instruments are produced every year.
In 1990–91, just over 100 statutory instruments were prayed against because hon. Members thought that they should be debated and voted on in the Chamber. The Government granted 25 such debates. If hon. Members pray against a negative procedure instrument, unless that prayer is tabled by a Front-Bench spokesman, there is virtually no chance of a debate.
Affirmative statutory instruments are debated automatically. However, the House treats delegated legislation with a significant lack of scrutiny and that is appalling. The Select Committee did not address that problem, although I gave evidence on that. The Committee dismissed my concerns too easily.
It is proposed that, instead of being debated on the Floor of the House late at night, affirmative resolutions should be sent to a merits Committee on a Wednesday morning because that is when such Committees meet. However, private Members' business is also proposed to be taken in Wednesday morning sittings. What happens if hon. Members wish to speak in both debates? They cannot be in both places at the same time. If we are to deal with the affirmative resolutions that are dealt with in this place and with those that are dealt with in Committee, many hon. Members will be involved in those Committees. That proposal is incompatible.
It is unfair that hon. Members should face the alternative of exercising a self-denying ordinance by removing themselves from the Chamber so that they can serve in Committee. The Select Committee report will place more obstacles on the 150 or 200 people in this place who are the workhorses of Parliament. They staff the Committees and frequently take part in debates. If we are to have morning sittings on Tuesdays and Thursdays, there will be more problems if Standing Committees meet at the same time.
There was an agreed timetable on the Broadcasting Bill which was a major piece of legislation. People argue that the timetable procedure ensures that all parts of a Bill are debated. That was not true for the Broadcasting Bill, even though the timetable was voluntary. Large chunks of that Bill were not considered because the Government wanted their business on the Floor of the House. In return for our timetable concessions, we had an extra day on the Floor of the House. The procedure does not work perfectly.
I do not cavil at the timetable on the Broadcasting Bill, although that was not a path that I would have followed. That timetable was introduced by agreement. However, the idea of compulsory timetables gives the Government a big incentive. A Conservative Member said earlier that he and his colleagues were going to speak. Of course they are. Conservative Back Benchers usually do not speak, because they do not want to take up time to justify a guillotine on the Floor of the House.
There was another confession, in this evening of confessions, from a former Minister who said that the thought of a row over a guillotine on a particular subject influences Ministers. It is therefore worth bearing in mind that we can exert pressure in this place.
It is true that some of my hon. Friends do not think that those pressures have been effective, but, when we face a Government with a huge majority of 150 over Labour and 110 overall, it is very difficult to make any indentations on


their political progress, but we can do so if we keep up the pressure and keep our wits and eyes about us. We will not do so if we hand an important power to the Government. Conservative Back-Bench Members will then use up the available time under the guillotine and we will lose one of our most important powers. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear:] I am not used to being surrounded by such support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) mentioned patronage being used to influence procedures. He claimed that comparative European Governments do not have the patronage that exists here through the whipping procedure. They have a system of patronage that is called proportional representation. Proportional representation is of concern of my hon. Friend. When the additional member system or any other list system applies, the relevant political party has enormous patronage. Other Parliaments do not have the problems that we have, because the people who are sent to other Parliaments, having been chosen by the machinery of the party, are clones of the leadership. All the dissidents are sorted out first of all. They never get on to the list in order to be electable. The result is safe, sound, dull assemblies which act as rubber stamps for anything that the leadership puts forward. Patronage comes from outside and makes its will felt inside before one runs into trouble.
One of the strengths of this place is that it is awkward. It is not neat and tidy, but we can use it as a platform—we can state our ideas. Sometimes it is difficult for a party leadership to stop ideas being expressed in this place. That makes it a bit awkward from time to time, but democracies are about awkwardness, about ideas being raised, and about clashes of opinion—even clashes of opinion on the same Benches. We will have clashes over the Maastricht Bill if the Government are silly enough to bring it back.
I do not believe that the report will advantage anybody except London-based Members who want to get home at seven o'clock, safe and sound and in time for tea and crumpets. If one lives in Bradford, that would involve a 400-mile round trip, and one cannot manage to do that. We have a decent system in which we utilise time to the maximum. We can have improvements in Parliament, but not in that respect. The Committee was set up for a certain purpose. I do not think that it is satisfactory. If the report comes back to this place, I hope that there will be lots and lots of amendments—in fact, I want to see it buried under amendments.

Mr. John Bowis: No doubt the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will keep us up through the night when the matter comes back to the House. We shall look forward to that. I represent a London constituency, but I do not work near enough to go home for tea and crumpets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) and the hon. Member for Bradford, South summed up my views on the report. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham pointed out many reasons why we need sensible reform of our hours in this place. Equally, the hon. Member for

Bradford, South rightly highlighted some reasons for our procedures. We need to get the balance right when we consider the report.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and the members of his Committee, from both sides of the House, who considered the matters that we have discussed tonight on their attempt to make agreed proposals which might at some point get through the House. However, we should be careful about welcoming those proposals and examine them carefully before we go overboard accepting them.
I hope that hon. Members heard clearly the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). He referred to the danger that hon. Members might come late to the proceedings and start talking about Members voting themselves shorter hours. It is not a question of that, and I hope that that will not be written in any newspaper columns. We are talking about making this place more efficient. It is not a question of time off. We seek to ensure that Parliament can do its job, but that legislation is not produced by a set of zombies—as can occasionally be the case when we have been here too many hours and days on the trot.
We seek a double balance. The Executive have a right and a duty to get their business through the House. One way in which they can do that is to produce less business so that it can go through at a more orderly pace and in a shorter time. We must seek a balance between that and the right of Parliament to careful scrutiny of legislation.
The other balance is between the mandate of a Government and the opportunities for opposition in Parliament. I do not refer only to opposition across the Floor of the House, although that is crucial to parliamentary democracy. If the Opposition do not have any weapons within the parliamentary system, there ceases to be any reason for them to be here. That is why I urge caution on my colleagues about removing the weapon of time from the parliamentary Opposition. If that weapon goes, there is some danger that opposition will leave this place.
I refer also to opposition between ideas. We have often seen private Members' Bills blocked. My Bill was blocked because Members talked it out. That was their absolute right. I disagreed with their tactics and their view, but it was a perfectly reasonable use of parliamentary time to block the progress of a Bill by talking it out. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was correct when he said that often the judicious and sensible use of time produces amendments and concessions which can make for better legislation or, indeed, stop legislation and give time for second thoughts.
Like the hon. Member for Bradford, South, I do not like the idea of morning sittings. Parliament has other duties in the mornings. It is not that I have an outside job; I do not. My morning work is connected with my parliamentary duties. Like those of many hon. Members who represent inner-city seats, vast numbers of my constituents write to me. I have some 50 casework letters every day. That is not unusual among inner-city Members. We need time to deal with that case work. Ministers also need time to deal with work in their Departments.
I slightly resent the time when I have to sit upstairs in Committee while a debate is taking place in the Chamber in which I wish to take part. That happens often enough now, when debates in the Chamber and in Committee clash only after 4.30 pm. It would be doubly bad if debates


took place in the Chamber in the mornings, even if only on Wednesdays. I therefore urge caution also on Wednesday morning sittings.
The recommendation to timetable Bills makes sense up to a point. Timetabling of the Report stage would probably make good sense. It might answer the suggestion made during the proceedings of the Select Committee that Report stages should be limited and the Bill sent back for a further stage of consideration in Committee. The sensible timetabling of the Report stage would ensure that all the issues that should come out in the debate did so.
I suspect, however, that the timetabling would have to be decided according to a procedure other than the whims and wishes of the two Front Benches, especially the Opposition Front Bench. We must ensure that the wishes of the House determine the subjects to be debated.
It is reasonable for us to consider ending earlier on Thursdays, but the House might consider the following alternative. Recently there have been many debates on the Adjournment on Thursdays, and Members have not had to be here to vote. I wonder whether it would be a better use of parliamentary time if it were the normal procedure to have a debate on the Adjournment on Thursdays, enabling us to finish at the normal time. Such debates are often more informed than others.
Perhaps we should also consider having concurrent debates, as is often the practice with orders. Several related subjects could be debated at the same time, with separate votes at the end.
I agree with the proposal that there should be more 10-minute limits on speeches. From reading the report, I am pleased to learn that that would apply to our most senior colleagues as much as to us more ordinary mortals. I am also pleased with the suggestion that the 10-minute rule for Bills should be left alone.
I am pleased at the proposals on proxy votes for the sick who are genuinely unable to attend. I look forward to finding out how those will be defined to avoid any of the voting abuses that have been mentioned. I suspect that there might be some challenges to those proposals.
I am unashamedly one of those Members who wish us to continue to troop through the Lobby. It is right that we should not be able to hide how we vote but should do so in person, except in the case of illness. The first time one votes against one's party certainly concentrates the mind, although I do not recommend that we do it too often. I vividly remember the first occasion when I did so. I think that it might have been a vote on your amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker, opposing the Government on the ending of dog registration. I did not go through the Lobby lightly. That is one of the procedures and traditions of the House that we should keep, although we might consider our procedures on multiple votes. There have been occasions when we have had to stand up and sit down in the Chamber with fair regularity. Perhaps we could consider group voting through the Lobby.
I welcome the report, and I look forward to the motions which will stem from it. Like the hon. Member for Bradford, South, I hope that we shall be able to vote on the various measures proposed because like him, I suspect that I may agree with some but wish to oppose others.

Mr. John McFall: As a member of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, it gives me pleasure to speak on the report in this new Parliament. My feelings on the report are characterised by one word—timidity. It is not quite like changing the deckchairs on the Titanic, but it is not far from it.
The report is timid in many respects. First, respect for this place is overwhelming. One should be respectful of history and tradition, but in this place respect goes as far as the ridiculous. We refer to our constituents in the Gallery as strangers, but none of us referred to any of them as strangers in March and April. Not only were they friends, they were deep friends as they trooped loyally to put their cross for us in the general election so that we could represent them here. Then we have the cheek to call them strangers for the next four or five years before we ask for their vote again. That is one example of the anachronistic practices of this place. It is a museum: it is not designed for the needs of the 20th century.
The report is timid in that, for reasons of time, it did not tackle the wider pressures on the House and Members. Considering the pressures that Members are under in the House and in our constituencies, I feel that our modest contribution could be swept away in the tide of external demands that Members have to face in fully representing our constituents in the latter half of the 20th century.
Fridays have been mentioned. It is proposed that there should be 10 Fridays on which we would be allowed not to be here. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, "Yes, a four-day week." I challenge my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have made that point. There is no question of our having a four-day week. Indeed, we ought to be off every Friday to enable us to go about constituency business. The newly elected hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) nods in agreement. He is a humble Conservative Back Bencher, as I am a humble Labour Back Bencher. During the previous Parliament I went to the school where he was a humble teacher to tell modern studies pupils all about Parliament. That is the kind of thing that I can do only on a Friday: it is a necessary aspect of the job to speak to our young constituents. Reference to Members attending Monday to Thursday as working a four-day week is not only gross cheek but amounts to gross insensitivity to the demands that Members of Parliament face. I for one would not be in any way shy about debating that matter anywhere at any time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred to the fact that power is flowing from the Floor of the Chamber to Committees. As a Member elected in 1987 I can say that my most fruitful work here has been done not in the Chamber, where on occasions it is very frustrating trying to be called to make one's points, but in the Committee rooms, where civil servants and Ministers—the people who hold the power—can be scrutinised. There is insufficient scrutiny of the Executive. Often on the Floor of the House, all we have are artificially long debates in which we get nowhere in terms of scrutinising the Executive. That could be changed, but unfortunately it is a matter which the Committee did not tackle.
We do not have sufficient opportunity to raise matters on behalf of our constituents. I should have liked to see the Committee suggest, for example, a period of 10 or 15


minutes at the beginning of each sitting when Members could have the Floor of the House for one minute to speak for constituents with pressing needs. Ten or 15 Members could be given that opportunity every day. It would be a service not only to those Members but to their constituents.
I welcome the idea that we should work towards a 10 o'clock vote. It is not shorter hours, but more sensible hours, that I want. I do not want to curtail the expression of opinion; I want to encourage more scrutiny. Why cannot we have more sensible working arrangements? Why do we start our business at 2.30 in the afternoon?

Mr. Cryer: We do not.

Mr. McFall: Business on the Floor of the House starts at 2.30.
The Committee's recommendation that there be one morning sitting a week—on Wednesdays—is timid. Why should not we sit every morning? Many, but not all, Members do not commit themselves to full-time membership. In saying so, I refer more to Conservative Members. If we had a commitment to full-time membership we could certainly have more orderly hours. We are told that this Parliament has more sitting days per year than any other Parliament in western Europe. That is true. But why do not we sit more than 161 days and spread the sittings out? That would be more sensible.
What are the drawbacks of our present system? Let me give two personal examples arising in the present Parliament. Last week, a very serious constituency problem—possible privatisation measures in relation to the Clyde submarine base—was brought to my attention. If the matter had been put to me next week or the week after that, I should have been unable to do anything about it, as the Executive cannot be scrutinised during the long parliamentary holidays. However, I was able last week to address the problem in the summer Adjournment debate. The Leader of the House passed my comments to the Ministry of Defence, and on Wednesday morning I am having a meeting with the Minister.
One week later, that effort would have been futile. I would not have had the opportunity to put my concerns to the Ministry. Once we came back in October, we could not have addressed that issue. It is a burning one presently, but in October when we return the decisions will have been taken.
Two weeks ago I was fortunate enough to have the Adjournment debate, but it took place at 7·45 am. The Minister replied at 8.10. I was up all night, I went to my flat at 9.15 and was back here to see constituents at 11 am. Back-Bench Members cannot give of their best in such circumstances, so what can Ministers do? We need to make far more radical changes to our procedures, but we have not taken the opportunity to do so.
I too have been taken in by the history and tradition of this place. I moved an amendment in the Select Committee on Sittings of the House to cease business in mid-July for our summer holidays. I felt that I was rather bold to move that amendment and I was happy when it was accepted. However, the next week the Chancellor gave his Budget speech and told us that the Treasury was changing the financial year so that the Budget would no longer be set in March. Experienced Members told me intially that I could not get away with the mid-July proposal and that, if I did, I would get away with murder. But a week later the

Chancellor stumped us all. That is another example of the way in which our respect for this place makes us myopic so that we cannot see the real issues. In this instance, I am as guilty of that as anyone else.
Why is the Leader of the House unable to give us more than two weeks' notice of forthcoming business? Last year, the secretary of a women's guild in my constituency wrote to me and gave me nine months' notice of a meeting she wanted me to address. I thanked her for her letter, but I had to say that I would write on the Friday before the meeting—in nine months' time—to say whether I could come. My action might seem sensible to my right hon. and hon. Friends, but does it make sense to the secretary of the women's guild in my constituency? I think not.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Did my hon. Friend go?

Mr. McFall: Yes I did, but it should be possible for me to organise my parliamentary diary more sensibly. It is not sensible to be told of parliamentary business with less than one week's notice, as at present.
I also moved an amendment in the Committee to introduce proxy voting, which summarised the difference between its experienced and inexperienced members, such as myself. We do not need to remind ourselves of the grotesque circumstances that prevailed in the 1970s when Labour Members were dragged from their sickbeds to vote here. At the time when the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill went through, George Cunningham, then a Member, recounted how three hon. Members had been dragged from their sickbeds to vote, any one of whom could have died in this Palace that night. The House insists that hon. Members should be here to vote, but that grotesque arrangement should stop.
My amendment was accepted by seven votes to six. Thew seven who voted in favour were, generally speaking, the least experienced Members of the Committee. The experienced Members warned us, "No, no, no. We cannot do anything about it. We cannot tell when a Member is sick." It was suggested that a doctor might give a sick line to someone who was not sick. It appears that we cannot apply the finest minds, which grapple with the problems of the nation, to defining when someone is sick. However, the inexperienced Members of that Committee voted in favour of my amendment. I remind the Leader of the House that we asked for a Speaker's Conference on that issue. We should have that conference as soon as possible.
The Committee also interviewed the previous Speaker about which proposed changes he would regard as beneficial. He said that, from his long experience, all reports recommending change had given more power to the Executive. I realise that that is a danger of this report. There is a democratic deficit in this country at present because the Executive power has grown and, to some extent, Parliament has become a spectator. I ask hon. Members, in voting and recommending the measures tonight, to bear in mind the words of the previous Speaker and ensure that the change gives not more power to the Executive but more power of security to Members.

Mr. Oliver Heald: As a new boy coming to the House for the first time, I was struck by one rule at an early stage: the 10-minute rule imposed while I made my maiden speech. As a result. I did not have an


opportunity, which I intend to take now, to say a few words about my constituency—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] I will only be short. I had an opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Am I right in assuming that the hon. Gentleman has made his maiden speech?

Mr. Heald: Yes.

Madam Deputy Speaker: In that case, and given the hour, the hon. Gentleman should confine his speech to the subject in hand.

Mr. Heald: In general, the 10-minute rule is extremely good, despite the difficulty that I have experienced in that connection. If one cannot say something in 10 minutes, it is probably not worth saying.
It may have been right in former times for the House regularly to sit until the early hours, but it is now the centre of national debate in a rather different way. Given the measures taken in the past few years such as televising the House, and the development of public interest in our debates, with more people attending debates than previously, the House should carry out its business when the public are available to take an interest. Regularly to sit beyond 10 o'clock is no longer a sensible way to proceed when people at home wish to visit the House and hear our debates and to see them on television.
I welcome the recommendation that the sittings of the House should end at 10 o'clock if possible. It is not only a question of the reporting of the House and its activities, and the fact that people can see the House operate, but a question of the life style of Members of Parliament and the people who can be attracted to put forward their names to attend the House.
Members who live in the shires close to London, or in London, could then have a prefectly normal life style, going home to their families at night. It is ridiculous to stop that happening and continue with unnecessary late-night sittings. It puts off many people, especially women and those with young families who might otherwise be interested in putting their names forward. Such restrictions should not exist.
The House is not simply a focus of national debate, but a place where representative individuals can put forward their view on behalf of their constituents. I am particularly concerned about the Maxwell pensioners. and it seems ridiculous that the major debate on IM RO and the supervision of occupational pension funds should have taken place at 5 am, when that subject is at the centre of national interest and should have taken place during normal hours.
Similarly, my experience so far has been that constituency work can be undertaken on Fridays. For example, last Friday I visited the Howard Cottage Society in Letchworth, which is putting forward plans for 110 new dwellings in Letchworth. It has a range of schemes for the disabled. At my surgery on Saturday, I was able to say with experience to someone with a housing need that that was the institution to go to for help. Such basic constituency work must take place on Fridays, when such institutions are open. Factories, too, can only be visited on

Fridays. We would be wrong not to allow such opportunities regularly, thus allowing diaries to be filled in advance.
Schools are currently very interested to hear hon. Members talk about the workings of the House of Commons. That should be encouraged: we want school children to know about such matters. Schools are also interested in the environment, and want to know about environmental measures, the Rio conference and so on. We should protect Fridays for that purpose, too.
I accept that the voting system does not feature in the motion, but it strikes me that we spend hours voting on, for instance, ways and means motions, when there is no serious challenge to the measures in question. Nine, 10 or 11 hon. Members will be voting on one side and 250 on the other. Hours that could be used for debate are being wasted so that hon. Members can troop through the Lobbies. I hope that the House will either introduce electronic voting or, if that is not considered suitable, at least come up with a measure that addresses the problem. Perhaps the voting system suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) could be introduced. If debates are to end at 10 pm, every hour of precious debating time will need to be saved.
Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that my original thought that I could mention the towns in my constituency rather more fully than I had done previously was not in order.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and I wish to ask the Leader of the House a question. If there are to be Wednesday morning sittings and—heaven help us—Tuesday and Thurday morning sittings, what will happen to all our constituents who visit the House from other parts of the country?
Following the perceptive speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South, I have some questions to ask about Friday sittings. We have heard a lot of cant on the subject. Last Friday we had a debate about toxic waste, which related especially to Wales. What other opportunities will the Welsh have to discuss Pontypool and its problems in the House? On the Friday before that, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) raised the issue of special educational needs. When did the House of Commons ever have an opportunity to discuss that issue, except on Fridays?
Before that, there was a debate on action for the countryside. I agree with the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald): Rio is important. That was my only opportunity to raise, at some length, issues arising from it.
Before that, there was a debate on recycling. The House has never had an opportunity to discuss that properly. The Friday before that, there was a debate on the common agricultural policy. When have we ever had a relaxed debate on the common agricultural policy?

Ms. Armstrong: rose—

Mr. Dalyell: I will give way, but my hon. Friend will forgive me if she gets a sharp answer.

Ms. Armstrong: Is the time on Wednesday between 10 am and 2.30 pm significantly different from the time that we have on a Friday? It seems to me that there is only half an hour's difference.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend has asked the wrong friend. I was the late Dick Crossman's parliamentary private secretary when he tried to bring in morning sittings. The Leader of the House when I was first here was lain Macleod, a man whom I admired greatly and who was personally extremely kind to new Members, including Opposition Members. He warned that morning sittings would end in fiasco—and so they did.
To return to my hon. Friend's question: the parliamentary Labour party hold its weekly meetings on Wednesday morning; when is it to hold them if we sit then?
All these issues are of minor importance compared with a much more fundamental one about which I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South. It concerns the rights and effectiveness of the Opposition. We have an adversarial system in this House and in the British political system, so what weapon besides time do the Opposition have? As the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) pointed out, the use of time can be a threat, and it would be removed from us. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South about John Silkin—the pass was sold, although de mortuis nil nisi bonum. It was all a matter of convenience; and once we make the House more streamlined and less inconvenient, the powers of the Opposition will be diminished.
I should like to offer some concrete instances. Only once in Mrs. Thatcher's early days as Prime Minister was a Government decision changed. That was when some of us—very few of us—decided to talk all night about retrospective Iranian sanctions. The Leader of the House may remember the occasion. The change came about—the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) will remember this only too well, because the Whips were involved—because of effective opposition.
After the event that I have just described, there was a truncated debate in the House, when the usual function of the Chamber was distorted and the rules were broken. The date was 3 April 1982; the occasion, the Falklands debate. Dissent was ruled out: there was no time for it. As George Thomas states in his memoirs, he decided that, in the short time available, the Prime Minister had to be supported. Had there been a six-hour debate, other voices would have been heard. Had they been heard, the battle fleet might not have gone south with the imprimatur of Parliament and some of the ridiculous statements made from the Labour Front Bench by Michael Foot and John Silkin would at least have been challenged. Things would have turned out very differently.
So much is arguable; what is not arguable is what happened in the 1960s. I am one of the dwindling band of Members who remember—my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) will contradict me if he thinks that I am terribly wrong—our late colleagues Jack Mendelson, Michael Foot and a number of others below the Gangway, arguing the case day after day against committing British troops to Vietnam. Because of the set-up in the House which allows the dissenters to have their say, this country, rightly or wrongly—rightly as some of us passionately believe—was kept out of the Vietnam war.
If there had been box-like 10-minute speeches of the type to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) referred, what would have happened over Suez? How could there have been opposition, rightly or wrongly, with its effect on political history if Members had been straitjacketed into speeches which no one interrupted? Such speeches are neat and tidy contributions which have little effect on the outside world. The House should not be unduly tidied up, because when we are tidied up we become much less effective. There is a dilemma between so-called efficiency and effectiveness. Warts and all, I would rather be effective.

Mr. Newton: The truest comment in this fascinating debate was made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who has apologised for not being able to stay until the end of the debate. He said that in this area it was clearly impossible to satisfy everybody's interests. I think that I have quoted him correctly. That has been clearly borne out in the debate. As I said in opening the debate, I was endeavouring to accord with what I took to be the spirit of the House by confining my speech to the magic 20 minutes recommended in the Jopling report. However, I found the widespread and entirely legitimate demand for interventions incompatible with limiting myself to 20 minutes. That is an interesting illustration of the sort of balance that we must strike in these matters.
Manifestly, whatever general importance the House attaches to short Front-Bench speeches in the interests of wider opportunities for Back Benchers, Members value the opportunity to get directly at a Minister by way of an intervention rather than in a later speech. Therefore, I would have upset the House more if I had attempted to stick to 20 minutes than I did by going beyond that time and seeking to answer some of the interventions. That would be accepted by anyone who has been present throughout the debate.
It has been an interesting debate, from which it is singularly difficult to draw clear and firm conclusions. Very strong cross-currents have emerged in all parts of the House—more than I expected when it was decided to have the debate. At times, those cross-currents almost became altercations. I shall have an abiding memory of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) shouting to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) that he should remember that some of us were capable of doing arithmetic. That was because the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East quoted statistics which included two summer recesses. The hon. Member for Perry Barr thought that that was an overstatement of the extent to which Parliament does not sit. Such differences have emerged on both sides of the debate.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) spoke from the Dispatch Box in the place customarily occupied by the spokesman for the official Opposition. The hon. Gentleman has apologised for not being here for the winding-up speeches. He said that was speaking pretty much in a personal capacity. I am glad to see the two Opposition Whips nodding. The hon. Gentleman made it fairly clear that there are what I have delicately called cross-currents among those on the Opposition Front


Bench as well as among those on the Benches behind them. That is one of the factors that both sides of the House will need to note and bear in mind.
On the Opposition Benches, the hon. Members for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) broadly supported the proposals, although neither of them said a great deal about the timetabling provisions. They were focusing more on other aspects of the proposals.
I am afraid that I missed the speech of the hon. Member for Perry Barr, but I am told that it was supportive of the report. I am not sure that he referred to the famous Rooker-Wise amendment to a Finance Bill in the late 1970s. I do not think that I was an Opposition Whip then. I think that I was simply a Back-Bench Member. As far as I could discern from what I was told about the hon. Gentleman's speech, he was suggesting that the amendment was mine and that he had simply hijacked it. I am not sure whether I regard that as supportive in all the circumstances, but it was an interesting time.
There was considerable support, going beyond what he described as the "timid" proposals in the report, from the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who was a member of the Committee.
Against that were some very strong arguments that cannot be dismissed—I entirely accept that—from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, who was pretty militantly opposed to the report, and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who made his reasons clear. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who spoke with such force a few moments ago, also strongly opposed it. I am not in a position to answer his question about what would happen to people seeking to visit the House of Commons if morning sittings were to take place on Wednesdays. Ultimately, that will be a matter for the House, but if our existing rules about the line of route were maintained, Wednesday mornings would be more limited, if not disappear altogether, as an opportunity for visiting the House. That would have to be considered by others.
I also cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question about where the Labour party's weekly meetings would take place. I am quite happy to leave that to his right hon. and hon. friends. However, and more seriously, the hon. Gentleman raised queries, which were answered by sedentary interventions, about the opportunities to debate the important subjects which he referred to as having been debated on recent Fridays. The answer is that the report envisages that the Wednesday morning sitting should be used for precisely that purpose. It may be that the opportunities for discussing these issues will be as great or even greater.

Mr. Cryer: The Leader of the House will bear it in mind that the difference between Friday and Wednesday is that there are no Committees sitting on a Friday, so people are free to concentrate on the Chamber, whereas on Wednesdays there are competing responsibilities of merits Committees and, under the Committee's proposals, more people will be involved in those Committees. Inevitably, more will be faced with a choice between attending the Committee and attending the Chamber and that is surely wrong.

Mr. Newton: I understand that point. I was trying only to comment on the suggestion by the hon. Member for Linlithgow that opportunities for debate on such subjects as come up on Fridays would disappear. I agree that Wednesday morning sittings raise questions of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but they are not entirely unique and new. Similar problems already arise from Standing Committees and Select Committees sitting in the afternoon. They should not be seen as insuperable, although I accept that that is one of the points that need to be considered in deciding what the way forward might be.
Matching the differences of opinion and concerns expressed on the Opposition Benches were comparable differences and concerns expressed by my hon. Friends. There was, first, the understandably strong support expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), which was endorsed very much by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who rightly reminded us of his long experience as Chairman of the Procedure Committee and of the extent to which earlier work of that Committee underlay the work of the Jopling Committee. There was strong support, too, from my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), though he expressed some reservations. In some respects they were perhaps surprising in view of his early-day motion. There was support, too, from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald).
Against that support, concern was expressed—I recognise that the arguments advanced cannot be dismissed—by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), by my hon. Friend the Member and, for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). who said that he would not feel able to support some of the proposals should they come to that stage. There was also my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis)—

Mr. Grocott: The Leader of the House made an ominous remark when he said. "should they come to that stage." He was talking about some of the proposals. Perhaps he will answer a question that has been raised many times during the debate, bearing in mind the fact that this is the second debate that we have had on these matters. When will specific motions be brought before us so that the House, which is admittedly divided on many of the issues which have been raised, can reach a decision on important matters? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a date and a time when he plans that to happen?

Mr. Newton: I cannot go beyond what I said in my opening speech, which was that I would be setting out in reasonable detail the Government's thoughts on the report. I said that I would, as I think I can claim faithfully to have done, pay careful attention to the views expressed during the debate with a view—I shall repeat what I said because I think that it is important and I suspect that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), the Opposition Chief Whip, will agree—to identifying a basis for agreement that can thereafter be discussed through the usual channels, with the aim of being in a position to bring forward substantive motions at an early stage after the House resumes in the autumn. I think that that is reasonably clear and I think that it is also a reasonable way in which to proceed.
In the concluding minutes of the debate, there are two fairly broad conclusions that I would draw. First—I take some comfort from this in view of the reservations expressed in some quarters—it has been right to have a wide-ranging general debate in the new Parliament before attempting to come to detailed decisions and to bring forward detailed motions. The quality and range of the debate have demonstrated the importance of proceeding in that manner.
Secondly, there have been differences of opinion—not least on the Opposition Benches—about the consequences of some aspects of the report if they were implemented. For example, the hon. Member for Perry Barr strongly took the view that they would assist the Opposition in scrutinising legislation more effectively, doing their job better and putting more pressure on the Government. There is the equally strongly held view of the hon. Member for Bradford, South and a number of other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Linlithgow, that they would gravely weaken the capacity of the Opposition to do the job that they wish to pursue. That is perhaps an illustration of the difficulty of achieving the consensus that would be required to carry matters forward in the way that we would all wish in a general sense.
The exact effect of what is eventually proposed will depend very much on detail, which can be achieved only by talking matters through in detail and not in a general debate of this sort. I would not wish to disguise from the House my own prejudice, which corresponds with some earlier parts of my experience. It picks some of the remarks that have been made about the absurdity of some aspects of that which our present procedure imposes upon us. As a Government Whip in the early 1980s, I have a clear recollection of going into Committee with the sole aim of clocking up enough hours to justify a guillotine. I do not think that many people would regard that as a sensible way of approaching the consideration of Bills in Committee.

Mr. McFall: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment to convene a Speaker's Conference on the proxy voting issue?

Mr. Newton: You are sitting in the Chair, Madam Speaker, and I think that I would be right in saying that a Speaker's Conference is a matter for you rather than for me. I have no doubt that you have studied the recommendations in the report and heard—or will be made aware of—the comments of the hon. Gentleman and a number of others during the debate.
Among all the difficulties that I face in replying to the debate is the fact that alongside the differences of opinion about the proposals in the report, there has been a wide range of proposals that are not in the report and, in some cases, have been suggested as substitutes for it. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who has now departed—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Madam Speaker: With the leave of the House, I propose to put together the motions on statutory instruments and EC documents.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Speaker: Then I shall put them separately. The Question is the next motion on the Order Paper.

Hon. Members: No.

Madam Speaker: Order. The motion must be put forthwith. I can accept an objection. Is there an objection to the motion?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Madam Speaker: In that case, we come now to the third motion—

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that we can vote on the motions, so a vote must be taken.

Madam Speaker: I am sorry. There can be no debate, but if the House wishes to divide, it can do so. Does the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) wish to divide the House on motion No. 2?

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

COMPANIES

That the draft Companies (Single Member Private Limited Companies) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 77.

Division No. 61]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Clappison, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Alexander, Richard
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Congdon, David


Ancram, Michael
Conway, Derek


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cormack, Patrick


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bates, Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Batiste, Spencer
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Devlin, Tim


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dicks, Terry


Booth, Hartley
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Duncan, Alan


Bowis, John
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Dunn, Bob


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Dykes, Hugh


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Eggar, Tim


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Emery, Sir Peter


Burns, Simon
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Butcher, John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Butler, Peter
Evennett, David


Butterfill, John
Faber, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fabricant, Michael


Cash, William
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Chapman, Sydney
Fishburn, John Dudley


Churchill, Mr
Forman, Nigel






Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Forth, Eric
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Nicholls, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Freeman, Roger
Norris, Steve


Gale, Roger
Ottaway, Richard


Gardiner, Sir George
Paice, James


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Patnick, Irvine


Garnier, Edward
Patten, Rt Hon John


Gill, Christopher
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gillan, Ms Cheryl
Pickles, Eric


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gorst, John
Redwood, John


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Riddick, Graham


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Robathan, Andrew


Hague, William
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hanley, Jeremy
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hannam, Sir John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Harris, David
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Haselhurst, Alan
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hawkins, Nicholas
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Sackville, Tom


Heald, Oliver
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hendry, Charles
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Sims, Roger


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Spencer, Sir Derek


Jack, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Spring, Richard


Jenkin, Bernard
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Steen, Anthony


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Stephen, Michael


Key, Robert
Stewart, Allan


Kirkhope, Timothy
Streeter, Gary


Knapman, Roger
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Thomason, Roy


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Leigh, Edward
Thurnham, Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Tredinnick, David


Lightbown, David
Trend, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lord, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


MacKay, Andrew
Waller, Gary


Maclean, David
Ward, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Watts, John


Malone, Gerald
Wells, Bowen


Mans, Keith
Wheeler, Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wiggin. Jerry


Mates, Michael
Wilshire, David


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Merchant, Piers
Wolfson, Mark


Mills, Iain
Yeo, Tim


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Monro, Sir Hector



Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tellers for the Ayes:


Moss, Malcolm
Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Needham, Richard



Nelson, Anthony





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ashton, Joe


Adams, Mrs Irene
Austin-Walker, John


Allen, Graham
Bayley, Hugh


Alton, David
Beggs, Roy





Bennett, Andrew F.
Kirkwood, Archy


Bermingham, Gerald
Lewis, Terry


Boyce, Jimmy
Lynne, Ms Liz


Bradley, Keith
McAllion, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McKelvey, William


Burden, Richard
Mackinlay, Andrew


Callaghan, Jim
McLeish, Henry


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Maginnis, Ken


Clapham, Michael
Mahon, Alice


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Connarty, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Cousins, Jim
Meale, Alan


Cryer, Bob
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Dalyell, Tarn
Morley, Elliot


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
O'Brien, Michael (N Wkshire)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Paisley, Rev Ian


Eagle, Ms Angela
Pickthall, Colin


Etherington, Bill
Pike, Peter L.


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Rooney, Terry


Flynn, Paul
Salmond, Alex


Foster, Donald (Bath)
Simpson, Alan


Galloway, George
Skinner, Dennis


Gapes, Mike
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Trimble, David


Hain, Peter
Tyler, Paul


Hall, Mike
Watson, Mike


Hanson, David
Welsh, Andrew


Harvey, Nick
Wise, Audrey


Hinchliffe, David



Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.


Janner, Greville



Kennedy, Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

COAL INDUSTRY

That the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

CALEDONIAN MACBRAYNE LTD.

That the draft Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1922, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approyed.—[Mr. Patnick.]

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 50.

Division No. 62]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Alexander, Richard
Bowis, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Brazier, Julian


Alton, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Ancram, Michael
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Arbuthnot, James
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Burns, Simon


Baldry, Tony
Burt, Alistair


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Butcher, John


Bates, Michael
Butler, Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Butterfill, John


Beggs, Roy
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cash, William


Booth, Hartley
Chaplin, Mrs Judith






Churchill, Mr
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Congdon, David
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Cran, James
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dicks, Terry
Kirkwood, Archy


Dorrell, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dunn, Bob
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Eggar, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Emery, Sir Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lightbown, David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evennett, David
Lord, Michael


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lynne, Ms Liz


Faber, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fabricant, Michael
MacKay, Andrew


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maclean, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Maginnis, Ken


Forman, Nigel
Maitland, Lady Olga


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Malone, Gerald


Forth, Eric
Mans, Keith


Foster, Donald (Bath)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Mates, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gale, Roger
Merchant, Piers


Gardiner, Sir George
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mills, Iain


Garnier, Edward
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gill, Christopher
Monro, Sir Hector


Gillan, Ms Cheryl
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Moss, Malcolm


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Needham, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nelson, Anthony


Gorst, John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hague, William
Norris, Steve


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ottaway, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Page, Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Paice, James


Harris, David
Paisley, Rev Ian


Harvey, Nick
Patnick, Irvine


Haselhurst, Alan
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Nicholas
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hayes, Jerry
Pickles, Eric


Heald, Oliver
Porter, David (Waveney)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael





Redwood, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Riddick, Graham
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Robathan, Andrew
Thomason, Roy


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Thurnham, Peter


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tredinnick, David


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Trend, Michael


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Trimble, David


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sackville, Tom
Tyler, Paul


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Salmond, Alex
Viggers, Peter


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waller, Gary


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Ward, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Sims, Roger
Wells, Bowen


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Welsh, Andrew


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wheeler, Sir John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Widdecombe, Ann


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wiggin, Jerry


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilshire, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spring, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Yeo, Tim


Steen, Anthony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stephen, Michael



Stewart, Allan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Streeter, Gary
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Tapsell, Sir Peter





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Lewis, Terry


Allen, Graham
McAllion, John


Ashton, Joe
McFall, John


Bermingham, Gerald
McKelvey, William


Boyce, Jimmy
Mackinlay, Andrew


Burden, Richard
Mahon, Alice


Chisholm, Malcolm
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clapham, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Meale, Alan


Cox, Tom
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Cryer, Bob
Mullin, Chris


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dalyell, Tam
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Pickthall, Colin


Donohoe, Brian H.
Primarolo, Dawn


Etherington, Bill
Raynsford, Nick


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Rooney, Terry


Flynn, Paul
Simpson, Alan


Galloway, George
Skinner, Dennis


Hain, Peter
Tipping, Paddy


Hall, Mike
Watson, Mike


Hanson, David
Winnick, David


Hardy, Peter
Wise, Audrey


Hinchliffe, David



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Janner, Greville
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Harry Barnes.


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Madam Speaker: Motions Nos. 5 to 10. Not moved.

Departmental Select Committees

Madam Speaker: Before we proceed with motions 11 to 26, it might be helpful to the House to indicate the procedures to be followed on the 16 motions for the nominations to Select Committees. First, there will be a joint debate on the motions and selected amendments, which may last for one and a half hours. The amendments selected are to motions 17 on health and 18 on home affairs.
At the conclusion of the debate, I shall put separately the question on each motion. Before putting the main question on motions 17 and 18, there will of course be an opportunity for the amendments to be moved formally and to be decided upon. In each case, the amendment to leave out a name will be decided first, because it is obvious that, unless a vacancy is created, a new name cannot be proposed.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You gave a ruling earlier today. Does that ruling apply to all the names on the Order Paper this evening? Should everyone have been consulted as per your ruling?

Madam Speaker: We have to proceed on the assumption that all Members have been asked, in accordance with the Standing Order to which I referred earlier.

Sir Marcus Fox: I beg to move,
That Mr. Richard Alexander, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mr. Paul Marland, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Colin Pickthall, Mr. George Stevenson, Mr. Jerry Wiggin and Mrs. Ann Winterton be members of the Agriculture Committee.

Madam Speaker: As I said, with this it will be convenient to discuss the next 15 motions on the Order Paper:
That Sir Nicholas Bonsor, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Frank Cook, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Neville Trotter and Mr. Peter Viggers be members of the Defence Committee.
That Sir Paul Beresford, Mildred Gordon, Mr. David Jamieson, Mrs. Angela Knight, Lady Olga Maitland, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Mr. David Porter, Dr. Robert Spink, Mr. Gerry Steinberg, Sir Malcolm Thornton and Mr. Dennis Turner be members of the Education Committee.
That Mr. Ian Bruce, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Oliver Heald, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Ron Leighton, Mr. Iain Mills, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Richard Spring and Mr. David Young be members of the Employment Committee.
That Mr. John Battle, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr. Barry Field, Helen Jackson, Mr. Robert B. Jones, Mr. Tom Pendry, Mr. Eric Pickles, Mr. Nich Raynsford, Mr. Gary Streeter and Mr. Roy Thomason be members of the Environment Committee.
That Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Mike Gapes, Mr. David Harris, Mr. David Howell, Mr. Michael Jopling, Mr. Jim Lester, Mr. Ted Rowlands, Mr. Peter Shore, Sir John Stanley, Mr. David Sumberg and Mr. Robert N. Wareing be members of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
That Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. James Clappison, Mr. David Congdon, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mrs. Jacqui Lait, Alice Mahon, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. Roger Sims, the Reverend Martin Smyth, Mr. Michael Trend and Audrey Wise be members of the Health Committee.
That Mr. David Ashby, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Hartley Booth, Mr. Peter Butler. Mr. Edward Gamier, Mr.

John Greenway, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Keith Vaz and Sir John Wheeler be members of the Home Affairs Committee.
That Mr. Joe Ashton, Dr. John G. Blackburn, Mr. Gyles Brandreth, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Paul Channon, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Bryan Davies, Mr. John Gorst, Mr. Alan Howarth, Mr. Gerald Kaufman and Mr. John Maxton be members of the National Heritage Committee.
That Mr. Spencer Batiste, Dr. Jeremy Bray, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Cheryl Gillan, Mr. William Powell, Sir Giles Shaw, Sir Trevor Skeet, Dr. Gavin Strang, Sir Gerard Vaughan and Mr. Alan W. Williams be members of the Science and Technology Committee.
That Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. Eric Clarke, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, Dr. Liam Fox, Mr. Phil Gallie, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. George Kynoch, Mr. William McKelvey, Mrs. Ray Michie, Mr. Raymond S. Robertson and Mr. Andrew Welsh be members of the Scottish Affairs Committee.
That Mr. Michael Bates, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. David Faber, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Clifford Forsythe, Tessa Jowell, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Patrick Nicholls, Mr. David Shaw and Mr. David Willetts be members of the Social Security Committee.
That Mr. John Butterfill, Mr. Richard Caborn, Dr. Michael Clark, Mr. Jim Cousins, Sir Anthony Grant, Dr. Keith Hampson, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Adam Ingram, Mr. Cranley Onslow, Mr. Stanley Orme and Mr. Barry Porter be members of the Trade and Industry Committee.
That Mr. Robert Adley, Mr. Jack Aspinwall, Mr. Matthew Banks, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Terry Dicks, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Keith Hill, Mr. John McFall, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and Mr. David Marshall be members of the Transport Committee.
That Ms. Diane Abbott, Sir Thomas Arnold, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Nicholas Budgen, Mrs. Judith Chaplin, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. John Garrett, Mr. Barry Legg, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. Brian Sedgemore and Mr. John Watts be members of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee.
That Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Jonathan Evans, Mr. Roger Evans Mr. David Hanson, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. Rod Richards, Mr. Mark Robinson, Mr. Walter Sweeney and Mr. Gareth Wardell be members of the Welsh Affairs Committee.

Sir Marcus Fox: For the benefit of our new colleagues, I must explain that it is nothing new for me to be standing here occupying a bed of nails. Since I took over about eight years ago, it has been just that—[Interruption.] Opposition Members have helped to make it worse.
May I remind hon. Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I do not mind going on for an hour and a half, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I mind very much. We have only one and a half hours for this debate. Let us proceed in good order.

Sir Marcus Fox: To illustrate my remarks, I shall take hon. Members' minds back to a similar occasion on 2 December 1987 when we were faced with exactly the same situation. I shall quote my own remarks because they are relevant for those hon. Members who suggest that we have somehow introduced a new idea by thinking that there should be a time limit. I said:
I shall describe how the Committee works. Select Committees are a nightmare".
for those of us who have to do the selection. The Members who volunteer are many.
Without any doubt, there is a surplus of possible members. It is impossible to give people their first choice. Many excellent colleagues are listed on the Order Paper. There may be more brilliant ones who have not been successful this time. We have to strike a balance between acknowledging the experience of certain hon. Members and giving other colleagues an opportunity to serve … When we make our recommendations, the choice rests absolutely with my four colleagues and myself. We represent the Government


party on the Committee and we take full responsibility for our nominations … In November 1979, my predecessor, Sir Philip Holland, said, as recorded in 'Erskine May'—that
`the Committee enjoyed full discretion and was under no obligation to consult, to take advice or to indicate any criteria of choice.'
It followed, therefore, that the Committee was procedurally free to choose whom it liked on whatever basis it thought applicable, subject to the eventual verdict of the House".—[Official Report, 2 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 1042.]

Mr. Gerald Malone: It would be helpful if my hon. Friend were to clarify a point early in the debate. During the weekend there was much talk about conspiracy theories. Can my hon. Friend confirm that on the Committee of which he is Chairman there serve the Labour deputy Whip, the Labour pairing Whip and the Liberal Whip, but no Government Whips?

Sir Marcus Fox: I confirm what my hon. Friend has said. The fact that we do not need that sort of advice makes the Opposition suspicious.
We can make changes of this type only immediately after a general election, and we do so by means of motions such as those on today's Order Paper. Between now and the next general election in four or five years' time, we shall be unable to make any changes, other than as a result of promotion, the creation of PPSs or resignations for other reasons. It is therefore important that we should establish, once and for all, why we have seen fit to operate as we have.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I should like the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to address a particular case. By what process of debate, discussion and agonised thought did the Committee come to the conclusion that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) should be on not one Select Committee but two?

Sir Marcus Fox: The answer is quite simple: he is a man of considerable ability. And, just as important, he happens to be a friend of mine. It is obvious that, with interventions like this, we shall make good progress.
There is confusion in many areas, but particularly in respect of Select Committees. We are repeatedly blamed for the membership of Committees for which we have no responsibility. We do not mind if people serve on the Public Accounts Committee, the Select Committee on Members' Interests or the Liaison Committee; we are concerned purely with the 16 departmental Committees. Some people have suggested that we should have crossed the names of some colleagues off the list, having added up alll the other Committees for which the Whips have responsibility. If there is such confusion, if people do not understand the Committees for which we are responsible, it is not surprising that they imagine that outside influences are brought to bear on us.

Mr. Frank Field: Is the confusion in our minds or in the hon. Gentleman's own? He says that the Committee of Selection is not concerned with certain Committees. Presumably he means that he is not tonight moving a motion about the process of selection. Can he confirm that the membership of the Committees to which he has referred comes before the Committee of Selection and that a motion setting out their composition appears on the Order Paper?

Sir Marcus Fox: No. Unusually, the hon. Gentleman has got it entirely wrong. Apart from the Standing Committees that deal with Bills, the only ones in respect of which I have responsibility for vacancies are the departmental Committees.

Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman puts forward the selections for Standing Committees. He is not concerned merely with departmental Committees. It is a very wide brief.

Sir Marcus Fox: I am awfully sorry. I accept, of course, full responsibility for Committees on Bills, statutory instruments and all the others. We were given the departmental Select Committees and the other, older Select Committees were left with the Whips. Those Committees are nothing to do with me, I have a big enough cross to bear as it is. I am glad that the issue about those Members who were supposed to serve on those Committees was not pursued.
I must assure the House that there is a clear distinction between the two types of Select Committee—some seek to blur it, for obvious reasons. I want to make it clear that the Government names on the motions are the total responsibility of my four colleagues and myself. I understand that there is a phrase going around—I think that it is a figment of the press's imagination—called the "Whips' rules", which is something to do with only serving in three Parliaments. That is not how it happened. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I notice that a quality newspaper said that the Whips' influence meant that three new Members who had applied to serve on Select Committees were kept off them because they had signed the anti-Maastricht early-day motion. I have checked early-day motion 174 and guess what? Nine colleagues on the 16 Select Committees signed it. Now, if the Whips had control, do hon. Members think that any of those Members would have been on those Select Committees?
In 1987, we considered introducing a time limit on how long one could serve on a Select Committee. We decided not to do so, for the simple reason that one could argue whether a term of eight years was long enough to justify a change. We thought not. Five years on, however, there are many good reasons why we should say that 13 years is long enough and that someone else should take part.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his wisdom. Could he tell us whether the entire Select Committee on Selection consider whether that rule should be introduced? Was that matter discussed? Was there a vote? Was it unanimous? If it was not, why does this co-called ruling, which my hon. Friend now denies, apply only to those on the Government Benches?

Sir Marcus Fox: My hon. Friend is also under a misapprehension. The Government always have the Chair of the Committee of Selection. The way in which the Opposition select their members of the Select Committees is entirely a matter for them. I repeat that it is entirely a matter for the five Conservative Members of the Committee of Selection as to how we select people. The quote that I read out from December 1987 made it clear—obviously some colleagues do not listen—that we do not have to explain our procedures. [Interruption.] I take it from the Opposition that there is never any question about their hon. Friends who serve on those Select Committees.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: The Committee of Selection does not need to explain its procedures because we can guess at them. Is my hon. Friend a Chairman of a Select Committee, because he is telling the House that he is only responsible for the Government Members on the Committees? If so why does the Committee of Selection not have a joint Chairman to represent the Opposition parties?

Sir Marcus Fox: My hon. Friend must read up on that Committee of Selection. When Norman St. John Stevas introduced the system in 1979, it was fully explained that the Government would have the Chair of the Committee but that each party would operate independently in nominating Members. The point that I was making was that, if Members could object to nominations to a Standing Committee on a Bill and we had to produce a reason for choosing one Member rather than another, we would never get a Committee set up.
In spite of the rulings that I have given, I pay tribute to those five colleagues who, whether Chairman or Members of those Select Committee, have made an outstanding contribution during those years. What we are trying to do takes nothing away from their contribution.

Mr. Bill Walker: I have no wish to attack my hon. Friend for his integrity. Will he assure the House that, as per the Speaker's ruling given earlier today, all those hon. Members named on the Order Paper were consulted before their names were tabled?

Sir Marcus Fox: Certainly—they are volunteers. On the Government's side of the Committee, all hon. Members under the motions in my name notified me that they wished to serve.
The real principle is whether those Committees were set up with the intention that Members should continue to serve year after year without limit. Is it fair to exclude those who are just as anxious to share that work? We came to the conclusion that we must at least create some vacancies because there were more than 200 applications for 96 vacancies on the Government side. Surely 13 continuous years on a Select Committee must be sufficient to bring about change.

Mr. Peter Fry: Is my hon. Friend trying to say that it is wrong to be on one Select Committee for 12 to 13 years, when one would presumably gain expertise in a subject, but perfectly right to serve 12 to 13 years on a number of Select Committees consecutively? Many people feel strongly about that. If people are to be told that they must leave a Select Committee after 12 to 13 years, the same should apply to anyone who serves 12 to 13 years consecutively on a number of Select Committees.

Sir Marcus Fox: If my hon. Friend would like to give me an example of a Member who has served 13 years consecutively on two departmental Select Committees, I shall discuss it with him.

Mr. Frank Field: I wish to speak to my amendment, but first, may I apologise to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) for choosing her name to be the one deleted from the Order Paper? It was not, as some hon. Members said it should have been, because the hon. Lady was a Minister, and ex-Ministers should play no part in the affairs of Select Committees. That is not a valid rule.

Back-Bench Select Committees give us an opportunity for a career structure in the House as an alternative to being on the Government or Opposition Front Bench. It was because the hon. Lady has been in the House for a considerable time, is known and respected and has a considerable number of friends in the House. As two new Conservative Members were on the Health Committee, I thought it proper that we should remove the name of the person in a more powerful position rather than that of a new Member without the hon. Lady's following. Using that procedure meant that we had to choose a name.
Let me begin by dealing with some of the—in my view—allacious arguments that have been advanced since it became known that an amendment would be tabled. It has been suggested, for instance, that I am merely doing the bidding of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), because on a previous occasion he tabled a motion to include me on what was then the Social Services Committee. It is true that, since Freud, none of us know ourselves fully, and perhaps I am kidding myself; but I have not moved the amendment simply as a pay-off for a kindness that was done to me—although, if that were the case, I should have moved it for reasons of friendship and loyalty, and I do not think that the House should discount such values.
More important issues are at stake, however. Although the amendments are linked to certain names, they are not about the hon. Member for Macclesfield. His name features, but we are dealing with more important questions than his fate. I hope that hon. Members will vote not on the basis of whether the hon. Gentleman is liked or disliked, popular or unpopular, but on the basis of the debate that they will have heard about the role of Select Committees and their development in our constitution.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it desirable for Opposition Members to seek to determine Conservative membership of the Select Committee? Would he find it acceptable for Conservative Members to try to interfere with Labour selections?

Mr. Field: I think that we have already heard the answer this evening. I was somewhat shocked by what the hon. Member for Shipley said about putting his friends on to the Committee, and about the votes that he controlled. I think that on some issues it is necessary to take a view for the House of Commons itself, rather than a strict party view. As taking a non-strict party view sometimes gets me into trouble with my hon. Friends, it is interesting that that stick should now be wielded on the Conservative Benches.
We heard an extraordinary introduction to the debate from the hon. Member for Shipley. He explained a great deal about the working of the Committee of Selection, which will give many people a lot to think about. None the less, I cannot but contrast the performance of the brave sparrow who would regularly appear on the "Today" programme when running for chairmanship of the 1922 Committee, assuring Tory Members who might be listening that he was the man to stand up to the establishment and to ensure that their views were represented, with the performances that we have heard in private and again tonight.
If someone who has colleagues around him in the Committee of Selection can behave in that way and then present a report as we have heard this one presented tonight, the Patronage Secretary clearly will not have


many problems when the Chairman of the 1922 Committee comes to represent the views of Conservative Members. The man who told Brian Redhead that he was a man of great integrity who would fight Back Benchers' battles, protect their privileges and ensure that their views were known, rolled over at the first hurdle, and the Patronage Secretary managed to tickle his chest.
When hon. Members build up reputations and then do not quite live up to them, the convention of the House is to draw a curtain around the matter and not to dwell on it. Perhaps we should do that with the performance of the hon. Member for Shipley.
I come now to what appears to have gone on. Long before the final meeting of the Committee of Selection, we heard that the hon. Member for Macclesfield would be "got" because he had not written a letter asking to be on the Committee. I believe that the hon. Gentleman then wrote his letter. So another rule had to be found. Someone quickly discovered that the hon. Member had served in three consecutive Parliaments. Clearly, no further homework was done at the time; had it been, the other motions on the Order Paper tonight taking off Conservatives—we understand that the Chairman is not worried about Opposition Members; he is concerned only with policing his own hon. Friends—would not have been necessary.
So following the failure of the "get Nick" campaign and the failure of the letter rule, another rule had to be thought up: the three consecutive Parliaments rule. Instead of voting on the hon. Member for Macclesfield tonight, we should vote on whether we want the Government or the Chairman of the Committee to introduce motions at some later date taking our views on this matter into account.
For instance, I should like the House to consider the consequences of the three-Parliament rule. It will not operate only in this Parliament. If the hon. Member for Shipley is still here in the next Parliament, and if he remembers his rule, it will presumably operate against a certain party; and it will have a cumulative effect with each passing Parliament. The rule of the hon. Member for Shipley will de-skill our Select Committees. Those who have built up expertise on them will walk the plank—at the end of three terms, their time will be up.
For this and other reasons, the House should agree to our amendment. If this limitation is operated, it will destroy one of the main reasons given for the Select Committees in the 1979 Parliament—that they offer an alternative career structure for those not in government and for Conservatives who will not never have a chance to hold office. We shall curtail that career structure with no compensating curtailment on the careers of those who hold office.

Sir Marcus Fox: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, come the next general election in five years' time, some Members on the Committees will have served 18 years but only six will be affected, if the Committee takes the same view then?

Mr. Field: Only six! Six people with the most experience will have to walk the hon. Gentleman's plank into oblivion.
This rule, arbitrarily dreamed up when other rules to "get Nick" failed, will weaken our democratic process. The role of the House of Commons has changed. is changing and will continue to change. In the past century, our job as Back Benchers was to make and unmake Governments. The party systems were in their infancy then, and there was a large number of smaller parties. As we moved into this century, our role changed. Since 1931 at any rate, the function of the House of Commons has not been to make and unmake Governments, although Prime Ministers can certainly be made or unmade by Members in this Chamber.
Rather, the House has witnessed the unfolding of general election campaigns. Both sides have set out their wares over four or five years, trying to present to the voters what the issues at the next election will be. [Interruption.] I am pleased to note that I have the attention of the former Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), who may laugh and joke during this debate. He would be walking the plank under this parliamentary rule if he had not gained Government office.
The major opposition party has failed to win in four general elections, and there is now a question mark over our ability to win. That changes the function of the House. [Interruption.] I hope that those who so readily agree with me will join me in the Lobby. If the normal crucial check on Government—the fear of losing an election—appears not to have worked, at least for the moment, it is crucial to build up other checks and balances to prevent the Government from becoming arrogant and arbitrary in their use of power. None of us can sec clearly now where that evolving debate will lead, but in it the Select Committees have a crucial part to play.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Select Committee system should make up for the deficiencies of the Opposition?

Mr. Field: No. I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House. Plainly, he performed better at the hustings than he is performing in the debate.
I do not argue that by itself any one move makes good that crucial check in our constitution. Governments become fearful of losing their power and influence and their red boxes and cars. I say that it is one crucial check. I shall not move the amendment with the idea that the House could do without Whips because, without a whipping system, the House could not operate. But sometimes the Whips are insensitive to the needs of the House. Because they are anxious to complete the day's business, they inevitably take a short-term, day-to-day view rather than a year-to-year or a five-year parliamentary view.
When we vote, I hope that the House, unlike the Whips, will decide that it wishes to see the Select Committees develop with the help of the Whips but not controlled by them. I hope that, when we face the electorate at the next election, the Select Committees will have reached that crucial next stage in their development. That stage begins with tonight's vote.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I welcome the fact that at long last these measures have appeared on the Order Paper. That is a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has been anxious to ensure their appearance. We have made it by the skin of our teeth. That means that it will be possible for the Select Committees to meet before the recess, elect Chairmen, arrange a programme and provide work for the Clerks. At least we have done somewhat better than in the last two Parliaments.
There is no reason why the negotiations could not have been concluded earlier. We have not succeeded in achieving the time limit suggested by the Procedure Committee. We should consider a mandatory time limit for the future so that we do not get into the situation of the past few weeks. At all events, we have made progress.
I am deeply concerned about the way in which hon. Members appear to have been, or are said to have been, selected for the Select Committees. That brings me to the role of the Whips. It is a feature of our departmentally related system that the usual channels must be involved to some extent; otherwise, with a Government majority on all the Committees, one would be unlikely to have any Opposition Chairmen. That has always seemed to me to be an important all-party aspect of the system.
That having been said, choosing the Chairman must be a matter for the Committee concerned. It is wrong that the Whips should become involved, as they have increasingly become involved in the past 10 years, in the question of who is selected to serve on the Committees. I take the point that the Committee of Selection includes two Opposition Whips and one from the Liberal Democrats, but Whips should not be involved in the way they are. Furthermore, it is important that the Committee should act as a Committee of the House, representing all parts of the House. The party division suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) undermines the basic all-party nature of the Select Committee system.
This brings me to the controversy of the past few days, and to the fact that we were told that there is a rule that members should not serve on a Select Committee for more than a limited period. It is wrong that this rule should have been announced to the media rather than to the House of Commons. However, it is not surprising that that is so, because there is no such rule. The device has been invented at the last minute to justify a series of selections. The traditional practice, where the Committee of Selection gives no reasons for its selection, is the right way to set about it; whether it has any internal view as to how it should set about its task is a matter for it.
The effect of applying that rule—although there is no such rule of the kind described—has been to remove some choice. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) is clearly the best candidate for Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. In all events, the Committee should have the right to decide whether it wishes to continue to have him as Chairman. The Committee of Selection has removed a desirable degree of flexibility as to who is chosen. It is tying the Committee's hands by the kind of announcement that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley.
Of course it is important that Committees should have a balance between new Members of Parliament and Members with greater experience, but we should not necessarily circumscribe the question of who those Members with experience are. I am in favour of more ex-Ministers and more members of the Opposition Front Bench teams serving on, or becoming members of, Select Committees. That would give the Committees greater weight in the inquiries that they carry out. The crucial point is that we get the right person for the job. Imposing the kind of rule suggested will not allow that flexibility.
We are moving in the opposite direction from the United States, which is sometimes taken as a model and where the seniority rule is supreme. If we are to have this rule, it must be determined by the Procedure Committee, debated and examined in length, and the House should be able to decide whether it wants such a rule. I have consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who was Chairman of the Procedure Committee in the last Parliament, and I gather that in the elaborate discussions that the Committee had on the matter there was not even a suggestion that there should be any such rule—still less had the Committee considered the matter or made any such recommendation.
I am deeply concerned about the way in which the matter has been handled. It is difficult for us to express our concern other than in this debate and the Divisions that will follow it. One of the reasons why this is of great importance to the House is the fact that, in the past 10 years or so, we have seen a major change in the constitutional position of the House. That is reflected in the Committees, and the importance that the House attaches to them is one of the reasons why it is a matter of concern to the Whips. It is important that these matters should not be handled in such a way. Instead, they should be dealt with on an all-party basis. I hope that, in the light of the debate, we shall consider what should best be done in future. At present, it is wrong to suggest that there is a rule which has determined decisions. As I have said, these matters should not be handled in such a way.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I wish only briefly to contribute to the debate. First, I should confess that I am a member of the usual channels and serve under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) on the Selection Committee. I was unable to attend the Committee's meeting last week because—luckily, perhaps—I was ill in bed. I saw the difficulty coming, and I took fever from the fright.
There are important issues at stake, and they have been set out at some length by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). As I am a member of the usual channels, I think that it is important that it is clear in our own minds that in our own parties and in our own ways we have means of bringing forward names to serve on departmental Select Committees. I am not especially interested what Members are put up by the other Whips on the Selection Committee, as that is a matter for the parties whom those Whips seek to serve.
There should be grave concern, however, if suggestions have been made by the 1922 Committee to produce the names of Conservative Members who have been put forward for the Select Committees. Surely that is a mistake. As the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr.


Higgins) has said, a ludicrous claim has been made that a rule exists when it does riot, but if names have been put forward by the 1922 Committee for the Conservative party, that is not something that would have caused any opposition—even though the decisions may have been mistaken—from myself or any other representatives of the minority parties. As a shop steward for those parties, I speak on their behalf to the best of my ability.
We must understand that, at the end of the day, it is the Executive, through the Whips, who come along with names. That is exceptional, wholly wrong, disreputable and objectionable, and a substantial breach of the procedure as I understand it.

Mr. Higgins: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting his speech. I wish only to make my own position clear if I failed to do so earlier. I did not wish to continue to be a member of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. That is important lest what I said a short while ago is considered to be special pleading on my behalf.

Mr. Kirkwood: I wish it to be understood that, from a minority party point of view and from my own position, I feel that the Government have not handled the nominations in the right way. At the same time, the House should recognise that the Whips have a function in bringing forward their party recommendations to the Selection Committee. If they did not do so, the Committee's job would be difficult, if not impossible, to sustain.
As a shop steward for the minority parties, I think that it is wrong that the Select Committees should consider setting up machinery to monitor eight principal Departments, including the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Departments of the Environment and Employment, without having a member of the minority parties within it. There are precious fewoccasions in debate on the Floor of the House when that is the position. The minority parties have only about 40 Members in the House and we suffer from overstretch, but we try to the best of our ability to submit names for Standing Committees. We try as a group to play our full part in the House, yet we are denied places in major departmental Select Committees. That is something that will have to be considered.

Mr. John Gorst: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kirkwood: No. I do not have time to give way.
There are amendments in the names of the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that my colleagues will support simply to make the point about the minority parties being denied places in major departmental Select Committees. It is right that we should do so.
It is also right that Select Committees are an important part of the procedures of this place. They are an evolving scene and the new Members nominated to serve on them have an important job in protecting the interests of the House in their deliberations. I hope that they will discharge their duties well, and I wish them every success.

Sir John Wheeler: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this short debate and I shall certainly try to be brief. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) has invented a new rule, which we have just heard about tonight. It comes as a surprise to me and, had I known about it, as an honourable Member of this House I would not have put my name forward for membership of the Home Affairs Committee.

Mr. Harry Greenway: My hon. Friend is making exactly the point to which we should all pay attention. Should not the rule have been laid down, in an authoritative way, before hon. Members were invited to offer themselves to serve on any particular Select Committee?

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments.
I was glad to find my name on the Order Paper on 9 July. In accordance with my expectations, and I think I may say fairly the expectations of many other hon. Members, I fully expected to resume my duties as a member of the Home Affairs Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley telephoned me at 12 noon on 9 July to say that a mistake had been made and that my appointment was to be cancelled; hence the amendment on today's Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw). Incidentally, I sincerely congratulate him on his nomination to the Science and Technology Committee. I am sure that he will serve with distinction.
All that I can say about the rules of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley is that they remind me of the unfortunate occasion when one steps on bubble gum deposited on the footway—tacky, sticky and lingering long after the event. I remind the House that, if we agree to motion 27, which refers to the interests of Chairmen and members of Select Committees, the proposed composition of the Home Affairs Committee will mean that nine of its lawyer members will not be able to inquire into such subjects as legal aid or the Crown prosecution service, as they would have a conflict of interest. I remind the House that, by a resolution of the last Parliament, that Committee has a responsibility for the Lord Chancellor's Department.
It is a privilege to serve the House as a member of a Select Committee. Any hon. Member who is selected for that service, which is quite properly unrewarded in any sense, undertakes an enormous burden of extra work, which it is a privilege to do. It has been my privilege to serve as a member of the Home Affairs Committee for 13 years, from 1979 until the general election this year. During my period of service, I was Chairman of the Sub-Committee since February 1980 and of the main Committee since 1987. It has been an immense privilege for me to make a contribution to the work of the Home Office and the Select Committee system.
Since the Committee was established, it has produced 67 reports, averaging 64 paragraphs in length. It is difficult for me to single out just one significant contribution to public policy, but I am especially proud of my work in 1981, in the aftermath of the inner-city riots, when the Sub-Committee prepared a substantial report on racial


disadvantage. I like to think that the report made an important contribution to policing and good race relations in this country.
More recent reports have included one of the British racing industry which, to my delight, has resulted in the Jockey Club and others proposing to establish a more broadly based committee for racing which will help to take that industry forward to a more successful future. Many of the Committee's recommendations and ideas on the structure and management of the police have been accepted or are in the course of being accepted.
No Select Committee and no Chairman could be successful without the wholehearted commitment and enthusiasm of the Clerks of the House. I know that they do not like to be referred to in debates in the Chamber. However, I have been fortunate to have worked with 10 splendid people during the time in which I have served on the Home Affairs Select Committee. All have been magnificent in their devotion to the work of the Committee and I am sure that it is right to thank the Clerks for their service during my chairmanship.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that the conclusion of my service was not apparently occasioned by any perceived lack of zeal on my part, by any lack of enthusiasm for the duties I voluntarily accepted or by my lack of attendance at meetings. I am proud to tell the House that, since my first appointment in 1979, I am recorded as having attended 489 meetings of the Committee and its Sub-Committee, with only 13 absences. Two were occasioned by illness and 11 by overseas duties. it is a record of service which I believe may stand comparison with that of any other hon. Member. I take this opportunity to wish every success to hon. Members who are privileged to be selected for that service. I shall observe the continued progress of the Select Committee with much interest.
I want the House to know that my name is on the Order Paper tonight and that I have neither sought nor canvassed any opinion on my behalf, as I should think that improper. I am content to leave the matter to the judgment of the House. I am satisfied that, over the 13 years in which I have had the privilege to serve on the Home Affairs Committee, I have done my duty to the best of my abilities.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Those of us who are used to addressing debates on Select Committees in the House with gatherings of 10 or a dozen are delighted to see the intense interest this evening, including a massive attendance by members of the Government. I have spotted four or five Cabinet Ministers, and I hope that that augurs well for interest in such debates in the future.
We all know what the debate is about. In intruding from the Opposition Front Bench, there is an element of feeling that I am intruding in what is essentially a private matter for the Conservative party. From what we have heard so far this evening, there will be considerable interest in the votes that take place later. There should be no apology from any Opposition Member who takes part in the debate because at has been most noteworthy for the heroic, but failed, attempt by the hon. Member for Shipley

(Sir M. Fox) to reconcile the irreconcilable—his responsibilities to the Committee of Selection which he chairs with his responsibilities to the Conservative party.
I welcomed the contribution by the hon. Member for Shipley if only because he coined the memorable phrase that 13 years is quite long enough. That apart, he failed to make any convincing case which any hon. Member could understand for the new three-term doctrine. That is the best way in which to describe it. As he was speaking, I wondered whether the three-term doctrine accounted for the departure of Lady Thatcher, or whether it will apply to members of the Government in future. Will their time be up after they have served for three terms? Or is this—as we know it is—a device in the Conservative party to deal with a particular local difficulty which has nothing to do with constitutional principle?

Mr. Barry Porter: As I gather that the hon. Gentleman objects to the rule, does he also object to the rule, apparently between the usual channels, about who should be Chairman and which party should chair a particular Committee, or has that rule been thrown out of the window as well?

Mr. Grocott: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the oddity about the rule enunciated by the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) is that he enunciated it as a member of a Committee, but it applies only to certain members of the Committee. It is not for me to determine how Members should vote on an issue of this kind.

Mr. David Marshall: With regard to the points made by the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) and by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who was a very fair and excellent Chairman of the Liaison Committee, the right hon. Member suggested that the chairmanship of Select Committees should be left for the members of those Committees to decide for themselves. Does my hon. Friend agree with that? If so, would that be advantageous for the House, because it would put an end to the trading that goes on behind the scenes?

Mr. Grocott: If my hon. Friend reads the debate on the Select Committee that took place two weeks ago, he will know how much I admired his work as Chairman on the Select Committee on Transport in the last Parliament. That was spelt out in Hansard two weeks ago.

Mr. Fry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Grocott: No, I will not give way again. I intend to speak for five minutes, which is five minutes longer than the Leader of the House.

Mr. Fry: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Grocott: I want to use my remaining minute to refer to the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests which referred to Select Committees and their Chairmen. That will be the subject of a motion later tonight, but it relates strongly to this debate.
I put it to the Leader of the House and to the Government that it is clear from earlier debates that the House believes that the rules governing the interests of


members of Select Committees, and particularly of Chairmen of Select Committees, need tightening and strengthening. There should be orders for that to obtain.
Given that the later resolution may go through on the nod, it is absolutely essential that newly appointed members of the Select Committees should, before a decision is taken about their Chairmen, be given clear information by the Leader of the House and the Government to ensure that they know the new rules that have been agreed by the House before they decide who their Chairmen should be. That is an important development and the House should recognise it, even though there have been no formal resolutions in that respect.
I will not be voting on the resolutions concerning the changes in Select Committee membership, although I doubt whether I will manage to convince many of my hon. Friends on that. I will not be voting because, so far as I am concerned, the membership that the Tory party proposes for its Select Committees is a matter for the Tory party. I do not apologise for giving the Tory party little lectures on democracy. In my view, we in the Labour party do things in a far more democratic way than the Tories.

Mr. Fry: rose—

Mr. Grocott: No, I will not give way.
When the Labour party argues about members of Select Committees, we do it on the basis that each individual Bank-Bench member of the party puts forward their preferences. Preferences are determined partly on the basis of geography and partly on the basis of seniority, and then the whole matter—this is anathema to Conservative Members, but they can listen to it none the less—is put before a full meeting of the parliamentary Labour party and is subject to debate and reference back if necessary. That seems to me to be a dramatically better way of dealing with matters than Conservative Members' method.
I hope that we reach a conclusion on this matter fairly rapidly tonight. I hope that the Chairman of the Committee of Selection has learnt a few lessons from tonight and from his dual responsibilities. I hope that, when they are established, the Select Committees do the proper job of scrutinising the Government, which they will do much more effectively now that there are far more Labour Members on them.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I rise with a very heavy heart and with considerable sadness to contribute to this important debate, which is really about the future effectiveness of this House of Commons. The Select Committees were set up to enable the House to monitor and scrutinise the Departments of government—the major Departments of government. It is indeed quite correct that the usual channels have a part to play in the allocation of chairmanships, but for the reasons advanced by hon. Members, once that decision has been taken., the usual channels should have no part whatever to play in relation to those who serve on the Committees and the person whom each Committee chooses to be Chairman from the party which has been allocated the chairmanship.
The Select Committee system is the only effective form in which this House can effectively monitor the Executive. At Question Time, one has only one question; statements,

again one question; private notice questions, really only one opportunity to come back to the Minister. The only effective way to hold Ministers, civil servants and others to account is the Select Committee system, which primarily involves Back Benchers of this House.
I believe that that is very precious. In fact, I go so far as to say that the Select Committees of this House are the last bastions of the defences of the country against excessive government. Perhaps I can say that from the Conservative side of the House after nearly 14 years of Conservative government, because I believe that, year after year, government can create an arrogance which can lead to dictatorship. I believe that that is what is happening in this House.
I am afraid, too, that the Committee of Selection has been severely compromised by what has occurred during the past week. I say to the Chairman of the Selection Committee that he now lacks credibility and integrity, and the sooner he is gone the better. The Chairman of the Selection Committee is supposed to chair the Committee and decide, of all those who apply to him and to his Committee, who should go forward and be appointed. I know from the contact that I have had with the Whips Office that that did not happen. I know that a list was submitted by the Deputy Chief Whip to the Selection Committee and that that list went through undiscussed, unamended and without debate, in less than a quarter of an hour.
I can only say that the Selection Committee Chairman is wrong. He talks about those who have served on a Committee for 12 years or three Parliaments. I wonder whether he is aware that the Health Select Committee has been in existence for only two years—not 13 years or 12 years. Indeed, I say to the House, as I say to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, that I have served on Select Committees of the House for 18 years, and I am proud of it.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), I am proud of the contribution that I have made as a member of the Select Committee. Unlike my hon. Friend, I chaired the Health Select Committee for only some 15 months, but it is an experience that I shall never forget. [Interruption.] If the House cannot forget it either, I have succeeded in my job.

Mr. Robert Adley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Winterton: No, I shall not give way to my hon. Friend.
My sadness is not that, by some devious, unfair, undemocratic strategems, I and other have been deprived of our places on Select Committees. My sadness is that I have made great friends with members of that Committee over the years and I shall miss their comradeship, their support and their co-operation.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North, I pay tribute to the staff of the Health Select Committee and its predecessor Committee. I wish to name Helen Irwin, who now serves another Committee. She was a wonderful Clerk to the Select Committee on Health and Social Services. I also name the current Clerk, Paul Evans, the Assistant Clerk Fergus Reid, and the Assistant Mike Clark as well as Carol Auchterlonie, the Committee specialist assistant and researcher. They are wonderful


staff. The relationship between the members of the Committee and the staff proves that the Select Committees work, and work as a team.
If I have anything to say tonight which I hope will be heeded, it is that the Committee of Selection of the House has made a real mess of the selection of people to serve on the departmental Select Committees. It has done so because it has succumbed to the blandishments and pressure of the Government Whips Office. That does no service to the House and no service to parliamentary democracy. Increasingly it appears to me that an independent view and freedom of speech are gradually being squeezed out of the House. I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, as the safeguarder of the privileges of Back Benchers, agree that that surely cannot be a good thing for the people of Britain.
I leave the House with three quotations. Two are from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with whom I entered into correspondence in February 1991 about Select Committees, the way in which Chairmen were chosen and the interference of the Whips. My right hon. Friend said in reply:
I was grateful to you for letting me know the terms in which you propose to conduct the Chairmanship of the Health Select Committee. I have no doubt"—
he underlined those words in his own writing—
that you will bring your own skill, knowledge and commitment to that task and that you will do it excellently.
Clearly, knowledge and experience and doing a job well have no further part to play in this place.
My second quotation from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is important. I have about one minute to go. He said:
Every Member of a Select Committee is free to vote for the person of his or her choice if a vacancy arises for the chairmanship. That has always been the case and will continue to be so.
I am delighted to see my distinguished Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) in his place. His Committee reported:
Committees should be left to elect whichever Member from the designated party they see as best fitted to discharge the responsibility of Chairman".
I hope that in the future the House of Commons will exercise its authority over the Select Committees,which are its only way of monitoring and scrutinising the Executive.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I shall make three brief points. First, I hope that the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) will forgive me for saying that I found his explanation for why the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) was serving on two Select Committees simultaneously rather unconvincing. I know that attendance in Select Committee is not always as high as it should be, but presumably they are set up with a view to trying to give Members the opportunity to attend. I should have thought that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross will find it very difficult to do justice to both the Select Committees on Defence and on Scottish Affairs simultaneously.
I do not know how many Conservative Members wanted to serve on the Defence Select Committee. I presume that it was quite a few. I imagine that that

Committee was over-subscribed. I should have thought that fewer wanted to serve on the Scottish Affairs Committee, but none the less, if the widespread suggestion that a place on the Defence Committee was the price of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross for serving on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee is true, it does the Committee of Selection no credit whatsoever.
If the Committee of Selection and the Government Whips have to go to such lengths to preserve an artificial Government majority on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, does the hon. Member for Shipley not think that it would have been better to abandon the idea that the Government must have a majority, rather than having the ridiculous spectacle of projecting the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross on to two Committees simultaneously, as he will not be able to do either any justice?
The Liberal spokesperson, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) mentioned my second point—the rights of minority parties in the House. When the arithmetical balance was being drawn for Select Committees, the Government's numbers in the House did not justify their having an automatic majority in each Committee. They needed an extra six Government places to guarantee a voting majority on every Select Committee, their argument being that each Committee must give the Government a majority and must reflect the balance of the House of Commons.
If that argument is being pursued, there can be no defence for not having a Member of one of the six minority parties in the House on each Select Committee.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman not find it strange that the Democratic Unionist party, which has the same number of Members in the House as his party, has been left out altogether, even though it made strong representations to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection? Will he remember that, on the proposal of the Chairman, the House voted me and a colleague of mine off the Selection Committee? I understand that the member appointed instead attended one meeting of that Committee.

Mr. Salmond: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The Democratic Unionist party is entitled to representatives on Select Committees. I also believe that the Social Democratic and Labour party is entitled to representatives. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and myself is not for any individual party, but to enable the six minority parties in the House, which collectively represent 7 million voters after the recent election, to have the basic entitlement of one representative on each departmental Select Committee. That does not seem to be an unreasonable request to make to the majority parties in the Chamber.
According to the Government's rules, if a Select Committee is to reflect the balance of opinion in the House, surely it must have a minimum of one representative from the minority parties.
Thirdly, anyone who has followed the interchange, or what has been going on in the Lobby, will know that it has been an exercise in total and utter fantasy. Two lists are available—a Government list and an Opposition list. Without exception, the Committee of Selection, chaired by the hon. Member for Shipley, has accepted those two lists, supplied either directly or indirectly by the Whips Office.


That is the reality of what we are debating. Therefore, I and the other representatives of the minority parties will take the opportunity to vote against Committees that do not have a minority representative.

Sir Peter Emery: I had no intention of speaking in this debate, and I shall take up only a very short time. There are certain facts that ought to be put before the House, as there are probably 300 Members who were not here when the departmental Select Committees were originally set up in 1979–80.
The first fact is that, until that time, the Committee of Selection appointed Members only to the Standing Commitees. The membership of all Select Committees was arranged through the usual channels, and the motions were tabled in the name of the Leader of the House. It was to get away from that, to try to ensure that the Members appointed to the departmental Select Committees were representative of all sections of the House and were not nominees of the Whips, that the appointments were given to the Committee of Selection. What has happened since then is history, but it is proper that the facts of the intention of the House when the departmental Select Committees were set up should be recorded.
The second important matter, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) referred, is that once it has been decided, through the usual channels, which party the Chairman of each Committee should come from, it should be left to the Committee to decide which member of that party should be the Chairman. The appointment should not be arranged before the first meeting of the Committee. In fact, that was recorded. When the Procedure Committee was reviewing the work of departmental Select Committees it received clear evidence that this had not happened in the past. The Procedure Committee therefore made the situation perfectly clear.

Mr. Bill Walker: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that the Scottish Affairs Select Committee will have no option but to select and elect the individual nominated by the Labour party for the chairmanship, even if that person questions the right of the House of Commons to have its way in Scotland?

Sir Peter Emery: I do not wish to comment. I am merely trying to set out for the House the facts of the recommendation or of the procedure recommended. It seems to me that these things ought to be known to the House before it votes on any of the motions.

Dr. John Gilbert: One can be a little too squeamish about thuggery by the Whips. I speak as one who was sandbagged off a Select Committee at the beginning of the previous Parliament—a matter in respect of which I bear absolutely no malice towards my Chief Whip. We had a very pleasant conversation on the subject, and I found myself on another Committee, which was very congenial. Lest it be thought that I, like the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), am on my feet because I am not to be on a Select Committee on this occasion, let me assure the House that that was the result of further consultation with the Chief Whip.

Mr. Higgins: In an earlier intervention I sought to clarify the situation. I have made it quite clear that I did not wish to be renominated for membership.

Dr. Gilbert: The right hon. Gentleman has not been listening very carefully. What he has just said was understood by me. It is for precisely the same reason that I am not to be on a Select Committee in this Parliament.
In these matters, neither side is without blemish. I take the point that it is unfortunate that Opposition Whips are on the Committee of Selection, and it is unconscionable that the Chairman of the 1922 Committee is Chairman of the Committee of Selection. I do not endorse all the propositions that have been put forward tonight on either side of the House. There is no reason why Conservative Members should not choose their Select Committee members by rules and conventions that seem fit and proper to them. Whether they discuss the subject among themselves is a matter for them, and not for the Opposition.

Mr. Gorst: There is a big distinction between the Whips in the opposition parties having a hand in selection and the Government Whips having a part. Select Committees monitor and scrutinise what the Government do and, therefore, because we are not examining what the Opposition do, the Opposition Whips do not commit a foul. It is quite a different matter when the Government are not only the culprit, but act as judge and jury by influencing membership of those Select Committees.

Dr. Gilbert: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which should be referred to the Committee of Selection. Realistically, the Whips will always have a hand in such matters, whether they are on the Committees or not.
I do not understand all the fuss about who should be selected to be Chairmen of the Committees. It is totally within the power of any Select Committee to choose any of its members to be Chairman on any occasion. It may change that choice during any Parliament. We can only blame ourselves if we complain that the Whips choose the Chairmen for us. It is entirely in the hands of Members on both sides of those Committees to decide who shall be and who shall remain the Chairmen of them.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Worthing about the shoddiness and ineptness displayed in the selection process on this occasion. I was totally unimpressed by the remarks of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, and I am equally unimpressed by the half acre of green Bench where the Government Chief Whip normally sits. If he seriously thinks that he can delude the House into thinking that he has no responsibility for what has gone on in the past few days, he must take us for complete idiots. We know perfectly well what has happened and it brings no great credit to the House.
I have never thought that longevity was a reason for staying on a Select Committee. Intelligence, application, diligence and ability to prosecute a line of inquiry are far more important characteristics of a successful Committee member than experience. However, I hope that, if any rule about senior Labour Members of Committees, such as that which has been put forward by the Conservative party, were put to my colleagues, they would consider it thoroughly obnoxious.
The way in which this matter has been handled can only pander to those who take a most cynical view of our affairs. I sincerely hope that the Select Committee on Procedure will consider it with dispatch and diligence.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: The last thing that I want to do, Madam Speaker, is to add to your burdens and duties, but it seems to me that you may have a future role to play in this matter.
The way in which the system has worked till now does not fill us with confidence. I believe that the Selection Committee should be chosen in the same way as the panel of Chairmen, who preside over Standing Committees on Bills, are chosen. The Whips do not play a part in that system. Doubtless they make comments, as they are fully entitled to do, but the choice of Chairmen lies with you, Madam Speaker, and your deputy. Because the House has total confidence in your independence and utter impartiality—if it did not, you would not be in the Chair—those whom you choose to do the job are more likely than others to share that reputation.
We must be realistic and accept that we cannot change the system until the new Parliament. However, when we go through the rigmarole again, the process should be under your jurisdiction, Madam Speaker, or, in the sad event of your not being in the Chair, your successor. If the Selection Committee were appointed by the Speaker, everyone could have total confidence in the system and the result.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Some hon. Members are cynical about Select Committees. I used to be in that camp until I had cause to change my mind. One of the reasons for doubting whether an effective monitoring job can be done is the remarkable fact that the Committees set up to monitor the Government contain a majority of Conservative party members.
I changed my mind because it was demonstrated to me that in the process of Select Committee work—the taking of evidence, the cross-questioning of Ministers and civil servants, and the bringing of other expert voices into the House—useful and interesting things happen. The process is extremely valuable, partly because we publish the evidence. No Select Committee member likes to think that his or her report will look like rubbish alongside the evidence.
The disciplines imposed on Select Committee members work well, but the whole process is brought into disrepute by what has happened on this occasion. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) to say that Tory Members are a matter for the Tory party, but I disagree, because it is a question not of the Tory party but of the Government. I do not believe for a minute that the Tory party is responsible for those machinations; the Whips acting as agents for the Government are responsible. That calls into question whether Select Committees can do an honest monitoring job in future.
It is remarkably politically inept of the Government because it gives the Opposition a weapon—to ask what is going to happen to the national health service between

now and the next general election which makes the Government feel that they cannot stand honest scrutiny and must try to fix the Select Committee membership.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Will the hon. Lady explain to the House why the Labour party Whips took the chairmanship of the Transport Committee away from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and the poor chap did not know about it until the day after they did it although the Conservatives knew about it?

Mrs. Wise: I am not responsible for any Whips. Although I may hold views about that chairmanship matter, the Labour Whips have not removed a person from a Select Committee. The hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) will be removed from the Committee altogether. They will have no role to play because, we are told, they have served for too long. Long service may not be a sufficient qualification for membership, but I cannot believe that it is a sufficient qualification for removal either. Surely it is not a disqualification for membership.
The hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) made it seem as though the membership of those Committees is set in concrete. Anyone who has served on a Select Committee knows that vacancies frequently arise as Members resign or go on to their respective Front Benches. Those vacancies could be taken by newer Members. The hon. Member for Shipley proved that there are few long-standing Select Committee members when he said that, at the end of this Parliament, only six people would be disqualified. That is six out of a large number of Select Committee members—96 on the Government side. That surely suggests a lack of long-standing expertise rather than a surplus, so what the hon. Member for Shipley has said is—not to put too fine a point on it—baloney.
The best speech in support of the amendment was made by the hon. Member for Shipley himself, because his speech treated the House with contempt. I prefer to believe that the House does not deserve such treatment, and I hope that many hon. Members who value the role played by Back Benchers will join me in the Lobby.

Sir Giles Shaw: I wish to speak to amendments (a) and (b) motion 18, which stand in my name, on behalf of the Committee of Selection. It gives me no pleasure to do so.
As hon. Members will know, at the time of its proceedings last week the Committee was not aware of the long service given to the Select Committee on Home Affairs by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler). It had been told that he had joined the Committee in 1983; only after the meeting was it discovered that he had joined in 1979. His long service is beyond price and, as he himself recognized—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM SPEAKER proceeded to put the Questions which she was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Order [3 July].

Question agreed to.

Ordered,
That Mr. Richard Alexander, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Martyn Jones,


Mr. Paul Marland, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Colin Pickthall, Mr. George Stevenson, Mr. Jerry Wiggin and Mrs. Ann Winterton be members of the Agriculture Committee.

DEFENCE

Ordered,
That Sir Nicholas Bonsor, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Frank Cook, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. John McVv'illiam, Mr. Neville Trotter and Mr. Peter Viggers be members of the Defence Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

EDUCATION

Motion made and Question put,

That Sir Paul Beresford, Mildred Gordon, Mr. David Jamieson, Mrs. Angela Knight, Lady Olga Maitland, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Mr. David Porter, Dr. Robert Spink, Mr. Gerry Steinberg, Sir Malcolm Thornton and Mr. Dennis Turner be members of the Education Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 44.

Division No 63]
[11.57 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Aitken, Jonathan
Congdon, David


Alexander, Richard
Conway, Derek


Allen, Graham
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Amess, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Ancram, Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arbuthnot, James
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Armstrong, Hilary
Couchman, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cox, Tom


Ashton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baldry, Tony
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Devlin, Tim


Bates, Michael
Dicks, Terry


Batiste, Spencer
Dixon, Don


Bayley, Hugh
Dorrell, Stephen


Bell, Stuart
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bellingham, Henry
Dowd, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F.
Duncan, Alan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Durant, Sir Anthony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dykes, Hugh


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Eagle, Ms Angela


Blunkett, David
Eggar, Tim


Boateng, Paul
Emery, Sir Peter


Booth, Hartley
Enright, Derek


Boswell, Tim
Etherington, Bill


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bowis, John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Boyes, Roland
Evennett, David


Brazier, Julian
Faber, David


Bright, Graham
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Forman, Nigel


Burns, Simon
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burt, Alistair
Forth, Eric


Butcher, John
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Butler, Peter
Foulkes, George


Butterfill, John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Byers, Stephen
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Callaghan, Jim
Fraser, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Freeman, Roger


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fry, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gale, Roger


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Gapes, Mike


Chapman, Sydney
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Churchill, Mr
Garnier, Edward


Clapham, Michael
Gillan, Ms Cheryl


Clappison, James
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Gorst, John





Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Sir Hector


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Needham, Richard


Grocott, Bruce
Nelson, Anthony


Hague, William
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hain, Peter
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hannam, Sir John
Norris, Steve


Hanson, David
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hardy, Peter
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Haselhurst, Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patnick, Irvine


Hendry, Charles
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pickles, Eric


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Home Robertson, John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hood, Jimmy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Radice, Giles


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Redwood, John


Hutton, John
Riddick, Graham


Illsley, Eric
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Janner, Greville
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Roche, Ms Barbara


Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rowlands, Ted


Jowell, Tessa
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kennedy, Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)
Sackville, Tom


Key, Robert
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sheerman, Barry


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Leigh, Edward
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Short, Clare


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Soames, Nicholas


McAvoy, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


McFall, John
Spellar, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spencer, Sir Derek


MacKay, Andrew
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Maclean, David
Spink, Dr Robert


McMaster, Gordon
Spring, Richard


Maitland, Lady Olga
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Major, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Malone, Gerald
Stephen, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Allan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sumberg, David


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Thomason, Roy


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Meale, Alan
Thurnham, Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Tipping, Paddy


Merchant, Piers
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Miller, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Mills, Iain
Trend, Michael






Twinn, Dr Ian
Wheeler, Sir John


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wicks, Malcolm


Viggers, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Wiggin, Jerry


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wilshire, David


Waller, Gary
Winnick, David


Walley, Joan
Wood, Timothy


Ward, John Yeo, Tim


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wareing, Robert N



Watson, Mike
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watts, John
Mr. Bob Dunn and Mr. George Gardiner.


Wells, Bowen





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Livingstone, Ken


Alton, David
Lynne, Ms Liz


Austin-Walker, John
Macdonald, Calum


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Maginnis, Ken


Barnes, Harry
Marek, Dr John


Beggs, Roy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Raynsford, Nick


Dafis, Cynog
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Salmond, Alex


Faulds, Andrew
Simpson, Alan


Flynn, Paul
Skinner, Dennis


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)


Foster, Donald (Bath)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Tyler, Paul


Hoey, Kate
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)



Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. David Trimble, and Mr. Andrew Welsh.


Lewis, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

EMPLOYMENT

That Mr. Ian Bruce, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Oliver Heald, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Ron Leighton, Mr. lain Mills, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Richard Spring and Mr. David Young be members of the Employment Committee—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Ordered,

ENVIRONMENT

That Mr. John Battle, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr. Barry Field, Helen Jackson, Mr. Robert B. Jones. Mr. Tom Pendry, Mr. Eric Pickles, Mr. Nick Raynsford, Mr. Gary Streeter and Mr. Roy Thomason be members of the Environment Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Ordered,

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

That Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Mike Grapes, Mr. David Harris, Mr. David Howell, Mr. Michael Jopling, Mr. Jim Lester, Mr. Ted Rowlands, Mr. Peter Shore, Sir John Stanley, Mr. David Sumberg and Mr. Robert N. Wareing be members of the Foreign Affairs Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

HEALTH

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. James Clappison, Mr. David Congdon, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mrs. Jacqui Lait, Alice Mahon, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. Roger Sims, the Reverend Martin Smyth, Mr. Michael Trend and Audrey Wise be members of the Health Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Amendment proposed: (a) leave out 'Mrs. Marion Roe'.—[Mr. Frank Field.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 210.

Division No. 64]
[12.10 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Ainger, Nick
Janner, Greville


Allen, Graham
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Alton, David
Jowell, Tessa


Armstrong, Hilary
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)


Ashton, Joe
Kennedy, Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)


Austin-Walker, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Battle, John
Leighton, Ron


Bayley, Hugh
Lewis, Terry


Beggs, Roy
Livingstone, Ken


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Lynne, Ms Liz


Bell, Stuart
Macdonald, Calum


Bermingham, Gerald
McFall, John


Betts, Clive
Mackinlay, Andrew


Blunkett, David
McMaster, Gordon


Boyce, Jimmy
McNamara, Kevin


Bradley, Keith
McWilliam, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Maginnis, Ken


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Mahon, Alice


Burden, Richard
Marek, Dr John


Byers, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Caborn, Richard
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Callaghan, Jim
Meale, Alan


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Cann, Jamie
Miller, Andrew


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Clapham, Michael
Morley, Elliot


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Clelland, David
Mullin, Chris


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
O'Neill, Martin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Cousins, Jim
Pickthall, Colin


Cox, Tom
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Prentice, Mrs Bridget (Lew'm E)


Dafis, Cynog



Dalyell, Tam
Primarolo, Dawn


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Purchase, Ken


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dowd, Jim
Radice, Giles


Eagle, Ms Angela
Raynsford, Nick


Enright, Derek
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Etherington, Bill
Roche, Ms Barbara


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Rogers, Allan


Faulds, Andrew
Rooker, Jeff


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Rooney, Terry


Flynn, Paul
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Rowlands, Ted


Foster, Donald (Bath)
Salmond, Alex


Foulkes, George
Sheerman, Barry


Fraser, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Fry, Peter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Gapes, Mike
Short, Clare


George, Bruce
Simpson, Alan


Gerrard, Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Snape, Peter


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Spearing, Nigel


Gunnell, John
Spellar, John


Hain, Peter
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)


Hall, Mike
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hanson, David
Tipping, Paddy


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Trimble, David


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Turner, Dennis


Hinchliffe, David
Tyler, Paul 

Hoey, Kate
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Home Robertson, John
Walley, Joan


Hood, Jimmy
Watson, Mike


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Welsh, Andrew


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Wicks, Malcolm


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Winnick, David


Hutton, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)






Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wise, Audrey
Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Aitken, Jonathan
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Alexander, Richard
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Amess, David
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Ancram, Michael
Hague, William


Arbuthnot, James
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Hanley, Jeremy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Hannam, Sir John


Baldry, Tony
Hargreaves, Andrew


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Harris, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bates, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Batiste, Spencer
Heald, Oliver


Bellingham, Henry
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hendry, Charles


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Booth, Hartley
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Boswell, Tim
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Bowis, John
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brazier, Julian
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Bright, Graham
Jack, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Jenkin, Bernard


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Jessel, Toby


Burns, Simon
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Burt, Alistair
Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)


Butcher, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Butler, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Butterfill, John
Key, Robert


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Chapman, Sydney
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clappison, James
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward


Congdon, David
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Conway, Derek
Lightbown, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Couchman, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
MacKay, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maclean, David


Deva, Nirj Joseph
McLoughlin, Patrick


Devlin, Tim
Maitland, Lady Olga


Dicks. Terry
Major, Rt Hon John


Dorrell, Stephen
Malone, Gerald


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mans, Keith


Duncan, Alan
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Dykes, Hugh
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Eggar, Tim
Mates, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Merchant, Piers


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Mills, Iain


Evennett, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Faber, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fishburn, John Dudley
Moss, Malcolm


Forman, Nigel
Needham, Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nelson, Anthony


Forth, Eric
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Nicholls, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Freeman, Roger
Norris, Steve


Gale, Roger
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gardiner, Sir George
Oppenheim, Phillip


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Ottaway, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Page, Richard


Gillan, Ms Cheryl
Paice, James


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Patnick, Irvine





Patten, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Stephen, Michael


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Stewart, Allan


Pickles, Eric
Streeter, Gary


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Sumberg, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Rathbone, Tim
Thomason, Roy


Redwood, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Riddick, Graham
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Trend, Michael


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Viggers, Peter


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Ward, John


Sackville, Tom
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Watts, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wheeler, Sir John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wiggin, Jerry


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilshire, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wood, Timothy


Soames, Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Spencer, Sir Derek
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)



Spink, Dr Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Spring, Richard
Mr. Robert Dunn and Sir Michael Neubert.


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main question agreed to.

HOME AFFAIRS

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That Mr. David Ashby, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Hartley Booth, Mr. Peter Butler, Mr. Edward Garnier, Mr. John Greenway, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Keith Vaz and Sir John Wheeler be members of the Home Affairs Committee—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Amendment proposed: (b), leave out 'Sir John Wheeler'.—[Sir Giles Shaw.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 139.

Division No. 65]
[12.21 am


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Congdon, David


Arbuthnot, James
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baldry, Tony
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cryer, Bob


Bates, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Beggs, Roy
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bellingham, Henry
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Beresford, Sir Paul
Devlin, Tim


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dicks, Terry


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brazier, Julian
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bright, Graham
Eggar, Tim


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Etherington, Bill


Burns, Simon
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Butcher, John
Evennett, David


Butterfill, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Cash, William
Forman, Nigel


Chapman, Sydney
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Clapham, Michael
Forth, Eric


Clappison, James
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Freeman, Roger






Gale, Roger
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Norris, Steve


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Oppenheim, Phillip


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Paice, James


Hague, William
Patnick, Irvine


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hanley, Jeremy
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Haselhurst, Alan
Pickles, Eric


Hayes, Jerry
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Redwood, John


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jack, Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Soames, Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lightbown, David
Spink, Dr Robert

 Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Allan


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Maclean, David
Thomason, Roy


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thurnham, Peter


Major, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Malone, Gerald
Trimble, David


Mans, Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Mates, Michael
Ward, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Meale, Alan
Watts, John


Merchant, Piers
Wells, Bowen


Mills, Iain
Widdecombe, Ann


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wilshire, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Wood, Timothy


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Yeo, Tim


Moss, Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Needham, Richard



Nelson, Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Mr. Bob Dunn and Sir Michael Neubert.


Nicholls, Patrick





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Alexander, Richard
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Allen, Graham
Corbyn, Jeremy


Alton, David
Cormack, Patrick


Ancram, Michael
Cousins, Jim


Armstrong, Hilary
Cox, Tom


Ashton, Joe
Dafis, Cynog


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dalyell, Tam


Battle, John
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bayley, Hugh
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dowd, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Duncan, Alan


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dykes, Hugh


Bermingham, Gerald
Emery, Sir Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Boyce, Jimmy
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Boyes, Roland
Faber, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Faulds, Andrew


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Byers, Stephen
Flynn, Paul


Callaghan, Jim
Foster, Donald (Bath)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Fry, Peter


Churchill, Mr
Gapes, Mike





Gardiner, Sir George
Mullin, Chris


Garnier, Edward
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


George, Bruce
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gerrard, Neil
Page, Richard


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Paisley, Rev Ian


Gorst, John
Pickthall, Colin


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Pike, Peter L.


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Primarolo, Dawn


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gunnell, John
Radice, Giles


Hall, Mike
Raynsford, Nick


Hannam, Sir John
Riddick, Graham


Hanson, David
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Harris, David
Rooney, Terry


Heald, Oliver
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hendry, Charles
Salmond, Alex


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

 Hinchliffe, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hoey, Kate
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Home Robertson, John
Simpson, Alan


Hood, Jimmy
Sims, Roger


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Spearing, Nigel


Janner, Greville
Spellar, John


Jessel, Toby
Spring, Richard


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)
Tipping, Paddy


Kennedy, Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)
Turner, Dennis


Kirkwood, Archy
Tyler, Paul


Lewis, Terry
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Livingstone, Ken
Viggers, Peter


Lynne, Ms Liz
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Macdonald, Calum
Waller, Gary


McFall, John
Walley, Joan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Welsh, Andrew


McMaster, Gordon
Wicks, Malcolm


McWilliam, John
Winnick, David


Mahon, Alice
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Wise, Audrey


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)



Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Tellers for the Noes:


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Peter Brooke.


Morley, Elliot



Mowlam, Marjorie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment made: (a), after `Mr. John Greenway', insert 'Sir Ivan Lawrence'.—[Sir Giles Shaw.]

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Ordered,
That Mr. David Ashby, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Hartley Booth, Mr. Peter Butler, Mr. Edward Gamier, Mr. John Greenway, Sir Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mrs. Barbara Roche and Mr. Keith Vaz be members of the Home Affairs Committee.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

Ordered,
That Mr. Joe Ashton, Dr. John G. Blackburn, Mr. Gyles Brandreth, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Paul Channon, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Bryan Davies, Mr. John Gorst, Mr. Alan Howarth, Mr. Gerald Kaufman and Mr. John Maxton be members of the National Heritage Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Ordered,
That Mr. Spencer Batiste, Dr. Jeremy Bray, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Cheryl Gillan, Mr. William Powell, Sir Giles Shaw, Sir Trevor Skeet, Dr. Gavin Strang, Sir Gerard Vaughan and Mr. Alan W. Williams be members of the Science and Technology Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. Eric Clarke, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, Dr. Liam Fox, Mr. Phil Gallie, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. George Kynoch, Mr. Willian McKelvey, Mrs. Ray Michie, Mr. Raymond S. Robertson and Mr. Andrew Welsh be members of the Scottish Affairs Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

SOCIAL SECURITY

Ordered,
That Mr. Michael Bates, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. David Faber, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Clifford Forsythe, Tessa Jowell, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Patrick Nicholls, Mr. David Shaw and Mr. David Willetts be members of the Social Security Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question put,

That Mr. John Butterfill, Mr. Richard Caborn, Dr. Michael Clark, Mr. Jim Cousins, Sir Anthony Grant, Dr. Keith Hampson, Mr. Doug. Hoyle, Mr. Adam Ingram, Mr. Cranley Onslow, Mr. Stanley Orme and Mr. Barry Porter be members of the Trade and Industry Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 43.

Division No. 66]
[12. 34 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Couchman, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Cox, Tom


Alexander, Richard
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Allen, Graham
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amess, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Ancram, Michael
Devlin, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Dicks, Terry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dixon, Don


Ashton, Joe
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baldry, Tony
Duncan, Alan


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bates, Michael
Eggar, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Emery, Sir Peter


Bayley, Hugh
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evennett, David


Booth, Hartley
Faber, David


Boswell, Tim
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forman, Nigel


Bowis, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling;


Brazier, Julian
Forth, Eric


Bright, Graham
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Freeman, Roger


Burns, Simon
Fry, Peter


Burt, Alistair
Gale, Roger


Butcher, John
Gapes, Mike


Butler, Peter
Gardiner, Sir George


Butterfill, John
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Byers, Stephen
Garnier, Edward


Callaghan, Jim
Gillan, Ms Cheryl


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chapman, Sydney
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Churchill, Mr
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clappison, James
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Gunnell, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hague, William


Congdon, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Conway, Derek
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hanley, Jeremy


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hanson, David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Harris, David





Haselhurst, Alan
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hayes, Jerry
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heald, Oliver
Pickles, Eric


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hendry, Charles
Portillo. Rt Hon Michael


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Redwood, John


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Riddick, Graham


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Home Robertson, John
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Roche, Ms Barbara


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hutton, John
Rowlands, Ted


Jack, Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jenkin, Bernard
Sackville, Tom


Jessel, Toby
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jowell, Tessa
Sheerman, Barry


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Soames, Nicholas


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spearing, Nigel


Leigh, Edward
Spellar, John


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spring, Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McAvoy, Thomas
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McFall, John
Stephen, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stewart, Allan


Maclean, David
Sumberg, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McMaster, Gordon
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thomason, Roy


Major, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Malone, Gerald
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mans, Keith
Thurnham, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tipping, Paddy


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Tredinnick, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Trend, Michael


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mates, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Viggers, Peter


Meale, Alan
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Merchant, Piers
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Miller, Andrew
Waller, Gary


Mills, Iain
Ward, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Monro, Sir Hector
Wareing, Robert N


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Watson, Mike


Moss, Malcolm
Watts, John


Mullin, Chris
Wells, Bowen


Needham, Richard
Wheeler, Sir John


Nelson, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wiggin, Jerry


Nicholls, Patrick
Wilshire, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wood, Timothy


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Yeo, Tim


Norris, Steve
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Oppenheim, Phillip



Ottaway, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:
 
Paice, James
Mr. Bob Dunn and Sir Michael Neubert.


Patnick, Irvine



Patten, Rt Hon John





NOES


Alton, David
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Barnes, Harry
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beggs, Roy
Cryer, Bob


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dafis, Cynog


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dalyell, Tam






Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Faulds, Andrew
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Flynn, Paul
Morley, Elliot


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Foster, Donald (Bath)
Pickthall, Colin


Hinchliffe, David
Pike, Peter L.


Hoey, Kate
Raynsford, Nick


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Janner, Greville
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C &S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Kirkwood, Archy
Trimble, David


Lewis, Terry
Tyler, Paul


Livingstone, Ken
Welsh, Andrew


Macdonald, Calum



Maginnis, Ken
Tellers for the Noes:


Mahon, Alice
Ms. Liz Lynne and Mr. Alex Salmond.


Marek, Dr John



Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Question accordingly agreed to.

TRANSPORT

Ordered,
That Mr. Robert Adley, Mr. Jack Aspinwall, Mr. Matthew Banks, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Terry Dicks, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Keith Hill, Mr. John McFall, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and Mr. David Marshall be members of the Transport Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TREASURY AND CIVIL SERVICE

Ordered,
That Ms. Diane Abbott, Sir Thomas Arnold, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Nicholas Budgen, Mrs. Judith Chaplin, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. John Garrett, Mr. Barry Legg, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. Brian Sedgemore and Mr. John Watts be members of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee.[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Jonathan Evans, Mr. Roger Evans, Mr. David Hanson, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. Rod Richards, Mr. Mark Robinson, Mr. Walter Sweeney and Mr. Gareth Wardell be members of the Welsh Affairs Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

SELECT COMMITTEES (INTERESTS)

Ordered,
That this House takes note of the First Report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests of Session 1990–91 (HC 108) relating to the interests of Chairmen and Members of Select Committees, and approves the recommendations of the Committee relating to declaration of interest in Select Committees (paragraphs 8 to 16), withdrawal from Committee proceedings (paragraph 24) and procedures prior to the election to a Chairman (paragraph 25).—[Mr.
Newton.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 15th July, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Patten relating to Education not later than one and a half hours after the Motion has been entered upon; and the said Motion may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Newton.]

Social Security Fraud

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Mr. David Evans: Little did I think, when I applied for this Adjournment debate, that it would follow such an exciting evening. I hope that my contribution can match up to the proceedings so far.
After two world wars—in particular the last—Great Britain was destitute. Rationing had become a way of life. The aim of the welfare state was to create a land fit for heroes. Today, unfortunately. it has produced a land fit for scroungers. As this country has become richer, our spending on welfare programmes has accelerated. By far the largest item of national expenditure is the £71,000 million that we spend each year on social security. For many, that sustains a gravy train that they have been riding all their lives.
The system is open to massive abuse. The head of the organised fraud unit at the Benefits Agency has said that it is easier to counterfeit a benefit book or a giro cheque than to go into a bank with a shotgun. There are fewer risks, and the returns are just as good. A criminal with 100 stolen security books could draw £8,000 a week.
Tonight, however, I shall concentrate not on elaborate frauds but rather on the routine deceptions perpetuated by millions of people every day. Throughout the country, thieves, cheats and criminals exploit the benefit system. It caters for greed, not need. By tackling the problem with forceful measures, the Government would not be kicking people who are down; rather they would be ensuring that a bigger slice of the cake was available to those who genuinely need it.
Since 1979, the Government have provided people with a multitude of incentives to work. For instance, they have reduced the basic rate of tax from 33p to 25p in the pound, and they have taken 1·5 million out of tax payment altogether. However, as well as waving a carrot, we must brandish a stick at those who scoff at such incentives and shy away from earning an honest living. It is about time the nanny state bared its teeth.
Essentially, social security fraud involves two types of criminal. The first may be called simply the layabout. At present, there are 841,000 long-term unemployed people—men and women who have been out of work for more than a year. I believe that, of those, 500,000 have no intention whatsoever of ever working again. They blatantly milk the system, and have probably not missed an Oval test match or a set at Wimbledon for years.
I am delighted that this problem is recognised even by Opposition Members. Indeed, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) recently said:
Labour has been linked with freeloaders for too long.
Who would argue with that? The hon. Gentleman continued:
I … know ordinary folk who expect rewards for hard work. They have no time for people who lie in bed when they are fit and able to get a job.
Constituents write to me and say that layabouts in their street laugh at them for going to work. They rightly resent having to subsidise their neighbours' extended leisure time. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall quote part of a letter that I received only this week:
Dear Mr. Evans,
The attached newspaper cut about your efforts on the


perpetually unemployed was interesting. My son, sad to say, is one of the long-term unemployed. He is 29, and he and his live-in girlfriend of like persuasion draw £150 a week for themselves and two children. He scorns people who go to work and gives this reason: a job at £3 an hour would be less than he gets now, £4 an hour would mean going to work, and £5 an hour would start paying tax.
That is the sort of scrounger I am talking about. The letter goes on:
The rest of us in the family are workers. My wife and I retired recently from a very successful business that we ran. My daughter has simply no time for my son's life style, yet there must be a million like him.
That gentleman is absolutely right.
To help to combat the problem, the Government should offer rewards to people who shop layabouts to the authorities. The potential saving to the British taxpayer is enormous—probably £1,000 million. People up and down the country know of a least one person in their street who dodges work and claims benefit. Rewards would encourage citizens to round up these cheats. In our communities, we should have dole posses as well as neighbourhood watch schemes. That would certainly increase the prosecution rate.
There were only 4,379 prosecutions for social security fraud last year, which represented only one quarter of all the cases detected. These people, categorised as layabouts, should have to report every morning to the local authority for community work before being entitled to benefit. For each year of unemployment over two years, one week's benefit should be stopped. Alternatively, why should we not have identity cards? Why should we not be able to identify those who have a legal right to social security benefits?
The other category of social security criminal is made up of the persons—there are millions of them—who claim unemployment benefit while working. This applies not only to the black economy but to regular work also.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evans: I will not.
I believe that £1,000 million a year is stolen by these people. Staff in benefit offices say that these cheats even come to claim their money wearing a suit or overalls, ready to go to their place of work. They prefer to sign on early so as not to disrupt their working day. Instead of requiring claimants to call in at a set time, we should institute spot checks. Social security staff should be able to contact a claimant at a moment's notice.
Greater pressure should also be put on employers who take on people who are obviously working the black economy. In May, a racket was uncovered in Surrey, where gang masters were providing unemployed labour to fruit farmers for £5 an hour. There cannot be a cheat without a collusive employer who allows that person time off to sign on.
At present, 2,658 full-time equivalent staff are employed on duties relating to social security fraud. That number should be greatly increased and more staff should be used to weed out employers who are costing this country a fortune, lining their own pockets by using illegal labour.
Instead of sending cheats, dodgy employers and layabouts to prison—they would probably relish the opportunity to put their feet up—they should be made to undertake unsavoury community service. Alternatively,

we could make them attend the Labour party conference—perhaps some of them already do. Repeat offenders should be sent to the Liberal Democrat conference—at least there are plenty of available seats. They would then think twice about swindling the taxpayer.
The tragedy is that many of the fraudsters are not ashamed of their actions, and many others in our society turn a blind eye to them. If they mugged an old lady for money, they would be condemned, but when they are indirectly taking money from pensioners via the benefit system, many do not bat an eyelid at their fraud. They are sent before magistrates, who administer little more than tea and sympathy.
The mandatory sentence for those committing fraud should be a turn on the good ducking stool in the local river—a good public flogging would he even better. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) has a good suggestion; he thinks that a ball and chain should be put on offenders—the larger the offence, the larger the ball and chain.
All things considered, it is little wonder that this country has become the focus of the European Community leisure industry. Forget EuroDisney: London is the place to have fun, all at the expense of the British taxpayer. According to figures produced by the Department of Social Security for 1990–91, some 220,000 foreign citizens came into Britain and registered for social security benefit. How many of them were genuine?
Most of them were from the EC, which is not surprising. Britain is attractive because it is the only place in Europe where claimants are entitled to unemployment benefit for a full year. They draw that benefit while working in the black economy. They can also seek housing benefit amounting to the full cost of accommodation, plus allowances. The total sum can run to considerably more than £150 per person, per week.
In contrast, an Italian claiming in Italy is entitled to 20 per cent. of his average daily wage in the four weeks preceding unemployment for up to six months. If he received no earnings in those four weeks, he gets no money.
The purpose of the single European market was to create free movement of labour. Instead, it seems to have produced free movement of cheats and layabouts, with Britain as the land of milk and honey. In common with the United States, we should refuse entry to all people from the EC unless they can prove that they have a bona fide job or sufficient funds to keep them during their stay. Why should my constituents subsidise Italian playboys on the make in London?
I have said it before and I shall say it again: I do not believe that anyone who comes to this country should receive any benefit until he has worked and paid taxes for five years.
I recognise that the Government have made considerable strides in combating fraud. I was delighted to learn that anti-fraud staff saved £416 million from fraud last year, and have set a target of £460 million this year. So my figure of £1,000 million is not too far adrift. Ministers have clearly realised that investing in detection provides a high rate of return, which is why more resources must be committed to it.
The huge army of scroungers out there must be brought to book. We owe it to the taxpayer, the staff who are abused daily in benefit offices and, above all, those who


genuinely require state assistance. If somebody genuinely needs our help, we shall help them. But those who work the system—no way.
I hope that the Minister will assure the House that she is aware that a social security fraud problem exists and will do even more than has been done already.

1 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) on obtaining this Adjournment debate and I welcome the opportunity to talk about the Government's approach to tackling social security fraud [Interruption.] The frivolity with which Opposition Members have greeted this subject would not be shared by their constituents.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Minister give way?

Miss Widdecombe: No, in the traditions of Adjournment debates, I shall not.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in the debate on public expenditure—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I realise that this debate has tested Opposition Members' self-control, but I should like to hear the Minister in peace.

Miss Widdecombe: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that I shall make no further impositions on their fragile self-control.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in the debate on public expenditure on 7 May that one of his key priorities was to bear down on fraud and abuse. It is an important subject and an essential element in any social security system, but it attracts too little serious attention and perhaps occasionally attention of the wrong sort.
Why is it one of our top priorities? It is not out of any sense of suspicion towards genuine social security beneficiaries, but because social security fraud and abuse harm the very people whom social security was designed to help—people on low incomes, people in genuine need and people who have spent their life working and paying national insurance contributions in the expectation that when they retire they will receive a decent pension. Fraud and abuse harm those people by stealing the money that they pay or have paid in taxes and national insurance, reducing the resources which can go into social security, bringing social security into disrepute, and making people in genuine need think twice about claiming.
Fraud comes in any number of guises. At one extreme are the people who drift into fraud out of the misplaced belief that perhaps one small lie does not matter. Then there are determined fraudsters who work while signing on as unemployed, invent extra children, discover how to invent a fictitious identity for themselves, or fail to disclose an earning partner.
At the farthest extreme are the so-called professional criminals, who burgle offices to steal blank order books, counterfeit instruments of payment, and run rackets involving multiple false identities and many different benefit claims. Their numbers are not great, but they represent a worrying element which calls out for tough action. Increasingly, we are beginning to see violent

criminals involved in that type of fraud. They prey on the naive and vulnerable by using them as runners to cash order books and take the risks.
Fraud is also a constantly changing field of action and counter-action. When we erect one barrier to fraud and abuse, the determined fraudsters will try to find a way round it. When we counter that new technique, they think up something else.
So how do we bear down on fraud and abuse? There are four planks to our strategy. There is deterrence—stopping fraud from happening in the first place; detection, to which my hon. Friend referred—finding it and stopping it when it does happen; recovery, so that we get back the money that people have stolen; and, in certain cases, prosecution—we take the most serious cases to court.
Deterrence is obviously crucial: its importance cannot be overrated. It is the most effective way of controlling fraud. We need constantly to improve our defences. By introducing the new income support computer system, we closed one avenue to fraud. People would claim income support at several different offices simultaneously; now, because the system is automated, they have to use more ingenuity and take more risks to create and maintain false identities.
More recently, we introduced a staff awareness package, "Fraud in Focus", to train staff in what to look out for and how to identify suspicious claims. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that we are working with the Post Office on a similar fraud awareness package for its counter staff, to teach them how to spot false or amended order books and giro cheques and to ascertain what evidence will verify a genuine identity.
However, as with many decisions on fraud, a balance must be struck between deterring fraud and running a social security system which allows people with genuine need to gain access to it. However strongly my right hon. Friend may feel, I am sure that he will agree that, if we turn ourselves into Fort Knox, we shall defeat the whole object of social security. Our strategy, therefore, is to put in sufficient checks and levels of verification to deter fraud, but not to be so intrusive as to deter genuine claimants.
Inevitably some people will slip through the net, and that is where detection comes in. We employ around 2,800 people to work against fraud, and most of them work on finding it and then stopping it. We have recently reorganised them to make them as well trained and effective as possible. Most fraud staff are now organised into sector teams, which are managed separately from benefit-paying operations but have a local presence. We also run regional fraud teams, which specialise in the most serious cases of social security fraud. We are developing new performance measures for our fraud staff to make what they do as effective as possible.
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, these measures are working. Last year, as he said, our fraud staff stopped some £416 million-worth of fraud—an increase of £83 million on the previous year. As he also said, this year's target is the best part of half a billion pounds, and in the first three months we are well on the way to achieving it.
When we find and stop fraud, we aim to recover the money that has been overpaid by deducting it from the fraudster's remaining benefit, or by civil recovery action. In a proportion of cases, we prosecute. We do not aim to prosecute everyone; it is a very labour-intensive exercise, and it would tie up manpower which could be used more


effectively in detecting and stopping more fraudsters. Nor would universal prosecution be necessary for its deterrent effect. The real possibility of being taken to court is the deterrent, and we are grateful to local papers which cover social security cases and ensure that word gets around.
In many cases of petty fraud, there would be little point in prosecution. Fines do not work well when a fraudster is on a low income and cannot pay them. Gaol sentences would often not be given because of the pettiness of the offence, and would in many cases leave the family on social security. We therefore aim to prosecute serious cases of fraud—taking the social, domestic and medical circumstances of the offender into account, rather than small-scale fraud. We do not, however, rule out prosecution as a last resort, if the circumstances warrant it. Last year, we took nearly 4,500 cases to court—a quarter of the confirmed fraud cases discovered—and our prosecution success rate was around 95 per cent.
As I have said, fraud is constantly changing its nature and there are always more areas to tackle. An example in the past few years has been the upsurge in abuse of the social security system by bogus asylum seekers. We have worked with the Home Office on better ways of identifying and controlling claims for asylum seekers, and we have reduced the order book period for asylum seekers from 20 to six weeks. We have also put resources into detecting multiple false claims by people masquerading as asylum seekers. We believe that, with the Home Office, we are now getting the problem under control.
There will, however, be other problems to tackle. Determined fraudsters can he very resourceful. The answer to this lies in effective ties between all the agencies involved in countering fraud—our own fraud staff, local authorities, the Department of Employment, the Home Office, and the police, with whom we enjoy an excellent relationship. It lies also in constantly learning from experience and ploughing back the lessons into training and new procedures; and it lies increasingly in information technology.
We already make substantial use of our computer systems to pick up and track fraud. The departmental central index, which holds details of claims to most social security benefits. is a very valuable resource. However, we believe that we can do a lot more to tap the full potential of this most potent asset within the letter and the spirit of the Data Protection Act 1984. In the coming years, we shall be using information technology more and more to deter fraud and to help detect it, by making it easier to cross-check details of claims and to identify suspicious claims.
My hon. Friend has spoken about abuse of the system, where people are not claiming fraudulently but neither are

they making serious efforts to find work. I well understand my hon. Friend's concern. We take all abuse of social security seriously. That is why we have made it a condition of getting unemployment benefits that people must be actively seeking work. It is not enough merely to sign on every fortnight. The Employment Service interviews every new claimant in depth. It reviews all claims for claimants who have been unemployed for more than 13 weeks, and it interviews at this stage all claimants who appear to need an in-depth discussion about their efforts to get back into work.
We introduced the restart programme in 1986 to guarantee an advisory interview every six months and ensure that claimants know and get a fair share of the employment and training opportunities available in their locality. After two years, everyone has to attend a restart course. An unemployed person who refuses a job offered or refuses to go for an interview can be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit for up to 26 weeks.
The signs are that we are winning the battle. Twenty years ago, people thought that it was smart to drink and drive. Now they do not, and even young people believe that it is morally wrong to put lives at risk in that way. A similar shift, although it is hard to detect in the attitude of Opposition Members tonight, is occurring in attitudes to social security. During the 1960s, some people began to think there was nothing wrong with abusing social security—that it was their right to live off the taxpayer if they so chose.
I believe that that attitude is now far less prevalent. Since the Conservatives have been in power, our unambiguous approach to abuse has had its effects. However, there are still those who believe that they can expect the taxpayer to support them. We need effective controls to stop those people exploiting a system designed to help genuine need.
In summary, the message that I should like to get across tonight to the vast majority of genuine social security beneficiaries and the small number of fraudulent ones is as follows. We are not a soft touch. People who are honest and in genuine need have nothing to fear and should exercise their right to claim benefit. The system is here to meet their needs. But those thinking about claiming benefit fraudulently should not do so, because we shall find them, catch them, and make them repay what they have stolen, and they risk being taken to court and fined, or being sent to prison.
I commend the measures to my hon. Friend and to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past One o'clock.